Awadan et al v. Reebok Corporate Headquarter

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/18/19 DENYING Defendant's 45 Motion to Compel.(Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHAINAZ AWADAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-1148 KJM AC (PS)

v.

ORDER

REEBOK CORPORATE
HEADQUARTER, also known as Reebok
International Ltd.,

16

Defendant.

17
18

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to appear for her

19

own deposition. ECF No. 45. This discovery motion was referred to the undersigned pursuant to

20

E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(1). For the reasons stated below, the court DENIES defendant’s motion.
I.

21

Relevant Background

Plaintiff filed her complaint on May 31, 2017. ECF No. 1. On March 30, 2018, District

22
23

Judge Kimberly J. Mueller adopted the undersigned’s findings and recommendations and ordered

24

that all claims in this case be dismissed except for two claims for conversion, giving leave to

25

amend as to a claim for false advertising. ECF No. 26 (adopting F&Rs at ECF No. 21). Plaintiff

26

did not amend and the action therefore proceeds on the original complaint, though only two

27

causes of action currently survive.

28

////
1

1

On June 7, 2018, the court issued a scheduling order setting a discovery deadline of

2

January 11, 2019. ECF No. 30. The order expressly stated that “[m]otions to compel must be

3

heard not later than December 19, 2018.” Id. at 7. After all discovery deadlines had passed, on

4

February 25, 2019, the parties agreed to submit to the court’s Voluntary Dispute Resolution

5

Program. ECF No. 39. They were appointed a mediator on March 18, 2019. ECF No. 40. On

6

June 26, 2019, the court issued an order noting the case did not settle and set a final pretrial

7

conference before the District Judge for October 4, 2019. ECF No. 42. That date has since

8

moved to October 3, 2019. ECF No. 46.

9

On August 20, 2019, defendant made an initial motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition.

10

ECF 43. The court re-opened discovery until October 4, 2019 for the limited purpose of

11

considering the motion, but denied the motion without prejudice because defendant failed to meet

12

and confer with plaintiff before moving. ECF No. 44 at 1-2. The defendant re-filed the motion to

13

compel on August 23, 2019. ECF No. 45.

14
15

II.

Defendant seeks to compel plaintiff’s deposition. ECF No. 49 at 2.

16
17

Motion

III.

Analysis/Summary of the Evidence

Defendant makes a legal argument about its right to take plaintiff’s deposition, but based

18

on a review of the record, there is no reason for the court to consider this argument. Defendant

19

states that it “originally noticed [plaintiff’s] deposition on July 18, 2019” and that plaintiff has

20

since failed to appear for two properly noticed depositions. Defendant provides no explanation

21

whatsoever as to why the court should compel plaintiff to appear for a deposition that was first

22

noticed months after the discovery deadline in this case had passed. Discovery closed on January

23

11, 2019. ECF No. 30. The fact that the case went through the VDRP process is irrelevant; that

24

process was initiated after discovery had closed. Defendant’s argument that it believed VDRP

25

somehow re-set the discovery deadline is suspect given the clear language of the minute order

26

following VDRP referral, which vacates only the pre-trial conference date, the trial date, and

27

related filing deadlines, with no mention whatsoever of the already-passed discovery deadline.

28

ECF No. 41.
2

1
2

The pre-trial conference in this case is quickly approaching. Defendant’s motion is
clearly untimely. The court will not compel a deposition at this very late juncture.

3

IV.

Conclusion

4

Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition (ECF No. 45) is DENIED.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: September 18, 2019

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3