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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?