McMahon v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 95

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/9/2020 ORDERING the parties shall confer on a joint stipulation extending time to conduct depositions by approximately 60 days, and submit this stipulation to District Judge Mendez; Plaintiff 's request to conduct an in-person deposition is DENIED. The court DECLINES to rule on any general objections to the scope of plaintiffs deposition of SPS's corporate representative. After the deposition has been scheduled, the parties shou ld contact the courtroom deputy with date and time of the deposition. On the day of the deposition, the court will make itself available by phone should the parties have a specific disagreement on the scope of any of plaintiff's inquiries; Def endant shall turn over to plaintiff any missing documents within 45 days. If defendant believes certain documents are privileged, unavailable, or otherwise subject to an objection, defendant shall inform plaintiff as much within this 45-day period; and Plaintiff shall submit amended responses to defendant's interrogatories by 7/24. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GORDON MCMAHON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:16–cv–1459–JAM–KJN
ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC
DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

v.
(ECF No. 92)
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC,
et al.,
Defendants.

16
On July 8, 2020, the court held an informal telephonic discovery conference to discuss:

17
18

(1) an extension of time to conduct depositions; (2) whether video or in-person depositions would

19

be required; (3) potentially overbroad issues being raised during plaintiff’s deposition of

20

defendant’s corporate representative; (4) potentially-discoverable documents that have not been

21

turned over by defendant; and (5) plaintiff’s delay in submitting amended responses to

22

defendant’s interrogatories. (See ECF No. 92.) Eric Mercer appeared for plaintiff, and Catherine

23

Robinson appeared for defendant SPS.
At the conference, the parties appeared amenable to conferring on a joint stipulation to

24
25

extend deadlines in this case for approximately 60 days (so that all parties can have time to

26

review any missing discovery before the depositions). The court also provided guidance on the

27

specific issues raised in the parties’ joint statement.

28

///
1

1

Based on the discussions at the conference, the court now ORDERS:

2

1. The parties shall confer on a joint stipulation to extend the discovery and dispositive-

3

motion deadlines in this case by approximately 60 days, and shall submit this

4

stipulation to District Judge Mendez;

5

2. Plaintiff’s request to conduct an in-person deposition is denied. Given the current

6

health crisis, depositions are to be conducted by video unless the parties jointly agree

7

otherwise;

8

3. The court declines to rule on any general objections to the scope of plaintiff’s

9

deposition of SPS’s corporate representative, although the court provided guidance

10

during the informal conference. After the deposition has been scheduled, the parties

11

should contact the courtroom deputy to inform the court of the date and time of the

12

deposition. On the day of the deposition, the court will make itself available by phone

13

should the parties have a specific disagreement on the scope of any of plaintiff’s

14

inquiries;

15

4. Defendant shall turn over to plaintiff any missing documents within 45 days of this

16

order. If defendant believes certain documents are privileged, unavailable, or

17

otherwise subject to an objection, defendant shall inform plaintiff as much within this

18

45-day period; and

19
20

5. Plaintiff shall submit amended responses to defendant’s interrogatories by July 24.
Dated: July 9, 2020

21
22
mcma.1459

23
24
25
26
27
28
2