Dukes et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 1034

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF RE: PLAINTIFFS' DEPOSITIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 9/19/2014. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BETTY DUKES, et al.,

Case No. 01-cv-02252-CRB (JSC)

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER BRIEF RE: PLAINTIFFS'
DEPOSITIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 1030

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Now pending before the Court is a Joint Discovery Letter Brief (Dkt. No. 1030).

14

Defendant seeks leave to take a second deposition of the five individual plaintiffs in this action.

15

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b), the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and having

16

considered the parties’ arguments GRANTS Defendant leave to take additional limited depositions

17

of the Plaintiffs.

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1) provides that a deposition is limited to one seven

19

hour day unless additional time is needed for a fair examination of the deponent. A party seeking

20

leave to extend the examination must show “good cause.” Boston Scientific v. Cordis Corp., No.

21

5:02–CV–1474 JW (RS), 2004 WL 1945643, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept.1, 2004). “Considerations

22

relevant to granting an extension include events occurring over a long period of time, the need

23

fully to explore the theories upon which the witness relies, or, in multi-party cases, the need for

24

each party to examine the witness with the understanding that duplicative questioning is to be

25

avoided.” Pratt v. Archstone Willow Glen Apartments, No. 08-3588, 2009 WL 2032469, at *1

26

(N.D. Cal. July 10, 2009) (internal citation omitted).

27
28

Defendant has demonstrated good cause to take second depositions of the Plaintiffs given
the passage of time and the change in the procedural posture of the case. Over ten years have

1

passed since the Plaintiffs prior depositions and two of the Plaintiffs continued to work for

2

Defendant until this year. Further, the change in the procedural posture of the case from a nation-

3

wide putative class action to a five-plaintiff individual action renders further depositions

4

appropriate. However, the depositions shall be limited to no more than four hours each and

5

Defendant shall limit its questioning to matters not previously covered. In light of that limitation,

6

it seems likely that at least some of the depositions will take less than four hours.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The parties shall work together to select mutually agreeable dates and times for the
depositions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 19, 2014
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2