Paula Gordon v. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., et al.

Filing 88

ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE re Discovery Dispute; ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE Related to Expert Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/9/2019. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAULA GORDON,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-0007 - DAD - JLT
ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC
CONFERENCE RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE;
ORDER AMENDING THE CASE SCHEDULE
RELATED TO EXPERT DISCOVERY
(Doc. 87)

17

The plaintiff claims she suffered sexual harassment by defendant Mendoza while employed by

18

Nexstar. After the company learned of Ms. Gordon’s employment complaint, Nexstar outsourced the

19

investigation of it. The investigator, Ms. Underwood, happens to be an attorney, though Nexstar does

20

not seek to assert any evidentiary privileges based upon this fact. As documented in her report, Nexstar

21

precluded Ms. Underwood from interviewing another employee, Ms. Duran, who also complained

22

about Mr. Mendoza sexually harassing her.

23

In connection with discovery in this action, Nexstar provided a complete copy of the

24

investigation. Nexstar reports it withheld information related to this investigation only to assert

25

privileges and, when it did so, provided a detailed privilege log. Ms. Underwood also submitted to

26

deposition. At the deposition, plaintiff’s counsel asked Ms. Underwood questions about what Nexstar’s

27

attorney told her related to interviewing Ms. Duran. Nexstar objected to these questions based upon the

28

attorney-client privilege/attorney work product among other grounds and instructed her not to answer.
1

In the current dispute, the plaintiff seeks to require Ms. Underwood to respond to the

1
2

unanswered deposition questions and for the withheld investigatory information to be provided. At the

3

telephonic conference, counsel could not come to a compromise to resolve the dispute.
At the conference, counsel also discussed concerns about expert discovery. As noted in their

4
5

earlier stipulation (Doc. 84), they have disclosed affirmative experts but have not provided reports

6

(except that the plaintiff has produced the report for her expert economist). The defense now realizes it

7

will need two rebuttal experts and needs additional time to obtain retain them and to produce their

8

expert reports. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1.

9
10

does, counsel SHALL comply with Local Rule 251 and file a joint statement1 in due time;
2.

11

b.

c.

The defense SHALL serve the rebuttal expert economist’s report no later than

d.

The defense SHALL serve the rebuttal expert human resources’ report no later

May 1, 2019;

18
19

The defense SHALL identify their rebuttal experts to plaintiff’s counsel and

report the experts’ availability for deposition no later than April 19, 2019;

16
17

By April 19, 2019, counsel SHALL have set the deposition schedule of all

experts that have been disclosed to date;

14
15

The case schedule is amended as follows:
a.

12
13

The plaintiff may file her notice of motion to compel no later than April 19, 2019. If she

than May 10, 2019;
e.

20

All expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than May 17, 2019.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:

April 9, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
1

The joint statement SHALL be formatted in a point/counterpoint as to each distinct issue.

2