Anderson v. USDA et al.

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/16/2016 ORDERING that the deadline for completion of discovery is extended to 7/22/2016. Plaintiff to provide the United States with dates he is available for his deposition not later than the close of business on 6/20/2016. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4

PHILLIP A. TALBERT
Acting United States Attorney
ALYSON A. BERG
Assistant United States Attorney
2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401
Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6

Attorneys for Defendant UNITED STATES

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

EZELL ANDERSON, JR., Doing Business As, )
Mom’s Choice Meats,
) Case No. 2:14-cv-02307 JAM/CKD
)
Plaintiff,
) EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND
) DISCOVERY DEADLINE FOR
v.
) LIMITED PURPOSE OF
) COMPLETING PLAINTIFF’S
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; KEVIN
) DEPOSITION; ORDER
CONCANNON, Undersecretary for Food,
)
Nutrition and Consumer Services; UNITED
)
STATES DEPARTMENT OF
)
AGRICULTURE; JOCELYN KEH, Section
)
Chief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
)
Program, Food and Nutrition Service, United )
States Department of Agriculture, and their
)
successors in office, ,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
The United States requests a brief extension of time by which discovery is to be completed

21

from June 15, 2016 to and including July 22, 2016, for the limited purpose of completing the

22

deposition of Plaintiff, Ezell Anderson, Jr., based on the following:

23

1.

The United States’ counsel took the deposition of Plaintiff Ezell Anderson, Jr. on

24

May 17, 2016. Toward the end of the deposition, a dispute arose regarding questions about a

25

“suggestion” made by Plaintiff in a settlement letter.

26
27

2.

Counsel for the United States sought to resolve the dispute at the deposition by

offering Plaintiff two options. Either Plaintiff could answer the questions about the “suggestion,” or

28
29
30

EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE FOR LIMITED
PURPOSE OF COMPLETING PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

1

maintain his refusal to discuss the “suggestion,” provided that, he would not assert the “suggestion”

2

in any future motions or at trial. Plaintiff would not agree to either option.

3

3.

After the parties were unable to resolve the dispute informally at the deposition, it was

4

agreed that the parties would not complete the deposition, and the United States reserved the right to

5

complete the deposition if Plaintiff continued to maintain that he would not answer questions about

6

the “suggestion,” and assert that such undisclosed “suggestion” could be used in defense of any

7

motion or at trial.

8

4.

9

Two more efforts were made to resolve the dispute informally after the deposition

with counsel for the United States originally sending a letter requesting the Plaintiff produce what

10

had been determined to be a “Form AD-287, dated March 6, 2013. (Exhibit “A”). Plaintiff refused

11

to produce the requested document by the date of June 3, 2016.

12

5.

After Plaintiff refused to produce the document, counsel for the United States sought

13

to resolve the matter in a telephone conversation with Plaintiff on June 9, 2016. During the

14

conversation, Plaintiff agreed to produce the document not later than June 10, 2016. However, the

15

document was not produced on that date.

16

6.

Because the document was not produced on the agreed to date of June 10, 2016,

17

counsel for the United States left several voice mail messages for Plaintiff to coordinate a date for a

18

Telephonic Discovery Dispute Conference with the Honorable Judge Delaney per the standing Order.

19

7.

No response was made to United States’ counsel’s repeated voicemail messages.

20

8.

Per letter dated June 13, 2016, counsel for the United States advised Plaintiff that the

21

efforts at informal resolution were unsuccessful, and the failure to respond to counsel’s voicemail

22

message rendered any attempt to comply with the Court’s Telephonic Discovery Dispute procedures

23

impractical. (Exhibit “B”).

24

9.

The Court entered a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order on April 14, 2016. (Docket

25

No. 46). The Order provided that non-expert discovery be completed by June 15, 2016. However,

26

due to Plaintiff’s refusal to answer questions about his “Form AD-287 dated March 6, 2103,” and

27

refusal to resolve the dispute in accordance with the Court’s Telephonic Discovery Dispute

28
29
30

EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE FOR LIMITED
PURPOSE OF COMPLETING PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

2

1

procedures (by refusing to respond to counsel for the United States’ phone calls), a brief extension of

2

the discovery deadline for the limited purpose of completing the deposition of Plaintiff is warranted.
10.

3

Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that the Court extend the deadline

4

for non-expert discovery to July 22, 2016, so that the United States may complete the deposition of

5

Plaintiff on the limited topic of the “suggestion” as more specifically known as “Form AD-287, dated

6

March 6, 2013.” The United States also requests that the Court order Plaintiff to provide dates that

7

he is available before July 22, 2106, to allow for the completion of his deposition at the Sacramento

8

United States Attorney’s Office at 501 I Street.1 Counsel for the United States is available on July

9

14, 15, 19, 20, 2016.

10

Dated: June 14, 2016

11

Respectfully submitted,
PHILLIP A. TALBERT
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

12
13

/s/Alyson A. Berg
ALYSON A. BERG
Attorney for Defendant United States

14
15
16

ORDER

17

Having reviewed the stipulation submitted by the parties, the dates are continued as

18
19

referenced above. It is further ordered that Plaintiff provide the United States with dates he is

20

available for his deposition not later than the close of business on June 20, 2016.

21

Dated: June 16, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

1

Counsel for the United States is agreeable to a telephonic conference regarding the dispute if the
Court is inclined to resolve this matter in that fashion.

EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE FOR LIMITED
PURPOSE OF COMPLETING PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

3