Hamilton v. RadioShack Corporation

Filing 51

ORDER re 47 Joint Discovery Letter filed by William Hamilton. Signed by Judge Beeler on 3/26/2012. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
WILLIAM HAMILTON,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 11-00888 LB

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE JOINT 3/13/2012
DISCOVERY LETTER

v.
13
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, et al.,

[ECF No. 47]

14
15

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16
17

I. INTRODUCTION
On March 13, 2012, Plaintiff William Hamilton and Defendant RadioShack Corporation filed a

18

joint discovery letter that detailed disputes regarding (1) Plaintiff’s requested extension of the expert

19

discovery deadlines; (2) Defendant’s issues regarding the depositions of Basem Aybef and Donna

20

Ocampo; and (3) Plaintiff’s alleged failure to provide supplemental discovery responses, documents,

21

and a privilege log. Joint 3/13/2012 Discovery Letter, ECF No. 47 at 1, 4-5.

22
23
24
25
26

II. DISCUSSION
A. Expert Discovery Deadlines
Plaintiff requests that the court extend the expert discovery deadline to June 1, 2012. Id. at 1.
Defendant opposes this request. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff argues that he needs more time because he limited discovery prior to the failed February

27

2012 mediation and is still conducting fact discovery that is a necessary prerequisite to the expert

28

discovery. Id. at 1-2. He asserts certain difficulties in obtaining fact discovery and concerns about

C 11-00888 LB
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER

1

hypothetical future problems. Id. at 2. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that Defendant will not be

2

prejudiced and, instead, is attempting to stop Plaintiff from developing his case. Id.

3

A scheduling order may be modified only for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). This “good

4

cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v.

5

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In this case, the parties requested

6

the expert discovery deadlines that were later ordered by the court. See Joint CMC Statement, ECF

7

No. 32 at 7. And these deadlines have been set since October 31, 2011. See Case Management

8

Scheduling Order, ECF No. 34 at 2. Plaintiff appears to have delayed in seeking fact discovery for

9

about a month after the unsuccessful February 2012 mediation and filed this letter just two days

establish good cause to extend the discovery deadline to June 1, 2012. The court, however, finds

12
For the Northern District of California

before the first expert discovery deadline. Given this context, the court finds that Plaintiff did not

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

that Defendant’s proposed compromise is fair.

13

B. Other Issues

14

Defendant raises concerns regarding the depositions of Basem Aybef and Donna Ocampo and

15

Plaintiff’s alleged failure to provide supplemental discovery responses, documents, and a privilege

16

log. Joint 3/13/2012 Discovery Letter, ECF No. 47 at 4-5. Plaintiff argues that when Plaintiff’s

17

counsel drafted this letter and presented it to Defendant one week ago, it was clear that it related to

18

the single issue of the disclosure date. Id. at 2. The parties must meet and confer and submit a

19

separate joint letter as to these issues.

20

The court, however, orders Plaintiff’s counsel having full authority to determine the issues must

21

attend. If this requires both of Plaintiff’s attorneys to attend the meet-and-confer session, the court

22

so orders it.
III. CONCLUSION

23
24

For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS that the expert disclosures are now due on May 1,

25

2012; rebuttal experts must be disclosed by May 15, 2012; and expert depositions must be

26

completed by June 8, 2012. The issues raised by Defendant must be submitted in a separate joint

27

discovery letter following an in-person meet-and-confer session in which Plaintiff’s counsel having

28

full authority to determine the issues attends.

C 11-00888 LB
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER

2

1

This disposes of ECF No. 47.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: March 26, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

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

C 11-00888 LB
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER

3