Martin v. Litton Loan Servicing LP

Filing 129

ORDER granting in part plaintiff's request for continuance of her deposition 128 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/11/14. (Hinkle, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RENEE’ L. MARTIN,

12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-970-MCE-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On December 8, 2014, plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a document with the court

18

entitled Declaration and Request of Plaintiff for an Immediate Order Re: Deposition of Plaintiff

19

Currently Noticed for December 16, 2014. ECF No. 128. Plaintiff states that her deposition was

20

recently noticed for December 16, 2014, by defendant Litton Loan Servicing LP. Id. at 1, 8.

21

Plaintiff claims that she informed Litton’s counsel that she will be out of town visiting her father

22

who recently suffered a stroke and therefore unavailable to attend her deposition on the date

23

noticed. Id. at 2. Thus, there appears to be good cause to continue the date for the deposition to a

24

later date.

25

However, plaintiff also raised another issue. She proposes that her deposition be

26

conducted on any Saturday in January. She asserts that she is not able to be absent from work.

27

Id. In an email attached to plaintiff’s pleading, which is dated December 3, 2014, Litton’s

28

counsel stated that he would be willing to re-notice her deposition for a different date, but insisted
1

1

that the deposition be completed in December. Id. at 8. Counsel further informed plaintiff that he

2

is not able to complete her deposition on a weekend. Id. On December 4, 2014, counsel sent

3

plaintiff another email stating that because plaintiff did not respond to the December 3, 2014

4

email, he would be proceeding with the deposition noticed for December 16, 2014, and would file

5

a motion to compel and seek all available sanctions should plaintiff fail to appear. Id. at 9.

6

The court construes plaintiff’s December 8, 2014 filing as a request to continue her

7

deposition currently noticed for December 16, 2014. ECF No. 128. The court has not yet held a

8

scheduling conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). Accordingly, there is

9

no pending discovery cut-off date, and therefore no apparent reason why plaintiff’s deposition

10

must be completed in December. Further, given plaintiff’s representations regarding her father’s

11

health, the court finds good cause for continuing plaintiff’s deposition. However, plaintiff’s

12

position that her deposition be conducted on a weekend is unreasonable. Plaintiff is admonished

13

that if she wishes to continue to prosecuting her case, she must make herself available for

14

deposition during regular business hours.

15

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 128, is granted in part and denied in part.

16

Within 7 days of this order, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the scheduling of

17

plaintiff’s deposition during the month of January 2015. The deposition is to be completed

18

during normal business hours, Monday through Friday. Plaintiff’s motion is denied in all other

19

regards.

20

DATED: December 11, 2014.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2