Scott-George v. PVH Corporation

Filing 141

[DISREGARD FILED IN ERROR]ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/6/2016 ORDERING The undersigned DECLINES to rule on the admissibility of the deposition, as that matter is properly before the District Court.(Reader, L) Modified on 10/6/2016 (Reader, L).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

M.F.,

No. 2:15-cv-0849 JAM CKD

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CENTER JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendant.

17
18

An informal discovery conference was held before the undersigned on October 5, 2016.

19

Daniel Shaw appeared telephonically for plaintiff. James Anwyl and Lynn Garcia appeared for

20

defendant. Upon review of the joint letter brief and discussion with counsel, and good cause

21

appearing, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

22

The parties entered into a stipulation on April 4, 2016 that all discovery taken in a related

23

state court case could also be used in the instant federal court action. After plaintiff’s disclosure

24

of Dr. Baladarian as a retained expert, defendant timely noticed the deposition of Dr. Baladarian

25

for September 30, 2016, a date well within the federal discovery cut-off of October 4, 2016.

26

Plaintiff objected to the deposition notice and also advised defense counsel that Dr. Baladarian

27

was not available for deposition until November 17, 2016. Plaintiff thereafter obtained

28

alternative dates of Dr. Baladarian’s availability for deposition of October 21, November 3, and
1

1

November 4, 2016, all of which were after the discovery cut-off. The parties have presently

2

agreed that Dr. Baladarian will be deposed on November 3, 2016 and the court confirms that the

3

deposition will proceed forward on that date.

4

Plaintiff, however, contends that she has the right to contest the admissibility of the

5

deposition in the federal action on the basis that the deposition was conducted after the discovery

6

cut-off. The undersigned declines to rule on the admissibility of the deposition, as that matter is

7

properly before the District Court.1

8

Dated: October 6, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11

4 mf-center849.idc

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

The court notes, however, that plaintiff’s position is tenuous, at best, in light of the prior
stipulation of the parties and the unavailability of plaintiff’s retained expert for deposition prior to
the discovery cut-off.

28
2