Bookhamer et al v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.

Filing 108

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 91 Discovery Letter Brief.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
ANTHONY BOOKHAMER,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),
v.

14

ORDER RE PARTIES’ JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER [DOCKET NO.
91]

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS INC,

15

No. C 09-06027 EMC (DMR)

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

This case arises out of a fire, which led to the death of Victoria DiSilvestro. One of her

18

sons, Plaintiff Anthony Bookhamer, was severely injured in the incident. On December 23, 2009,

19

Plaintiffs filed this suit, alleging multiple causes of action based upon the assertion that Defendant

20

Sunbeam Products Inc.'s allegedly defective electric mattress pad ignited the lethal fire.

21

On October 10, 2012, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding Plaintiffs’ motion to

22

compel the production of documents relating to electric blankets in response to 58 requests for

23

production. Defendant has already produced documents concerning electric mattress pads.

24

Plaintiffs concede, and the record demonstrates, that the issue of whether Plaintiffs are

25

entitled to discovery relating to electric blankets arose as early as the May 2, 2011 case management

26

conference before the Honorable Marilyn H. Patel. (See Hr’g Tr. 21:19-22:1 May 2, 2011.)

27

Plaintiffs also aver that the same dispute interfered with its deposition of Defendant’s Senior Product

28

Safety Engineer, Richard Prins, on May 26, 2012. Plaintiffs nevertheless waited until October 10,

1

2012 to seek redress from this court. To justify this delay, Plaintiffs attempt to misplace the blame

2

for their not having taken affirmative steps to obtain these documents by saying that Defendant

3

effectively led them on. [See, e.g., Docket No. 91 at 5 (“Sunbeam did not state that it was definitely

4

not going to produce the blanket documents during the process of trying to set Mr. Prins’ further

5

deposition.”).] These excuses are not compelling.

6

Non-expert discovery closed on August 24, 2012, [Docket Nos. 63, 107 at 1], and the

7

Honorable Edward M. Chen has declined to reopen discovery. [Docket No. 107.] Plaintiffs

8

therefore had until August 31, 2012 -- seven days after the non-expert discovery cut-off -- to file a

9

joint discovery letter. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 37-3. Plaintiffs do not provide any convincing

11

Because they filed the present letter well after the discovery motion deadline, even though they

12

knew of the dispute for well over a year, and have shown no good cause for so doing, the court

13

denies Plaintiffs’ motion as untimely.

R NIA

. Ryu

DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge
E

H

19

onna M
Judge D

RT

18

Dated: October 23, 2012

FO

17

D

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

RN

LI

16

DENIE

A

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT
ED

15

S

14

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

For the Northern District of California

argument that they were somehow prevented or deterred from filing a timely motion to compel.

NO

United States District Court

10

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C