Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California v. Walker et al

Filing 45

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY re 44 Letter. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 02/03/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND
FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 12-cv-01447-WHO

v.
KEITH WALKER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART REQUEST TO
EXTEND TIME TO COMPLETE
DISCOVERY
Re: Dkt. No. 44

12
13

Plaintiffs have requested an extension of time to complete discovery, over the opposition

14

of defendants. While the plaintiffs represent in the joint letter of January 29, 2014, that they have

15

been working diligently to complete discovery, their diligence is of recent origin. This case was

16

filed on March 22, 2012. No excuse has been offered, either at the Case Management Conference

17

on January 28, 2014, or in the joint letter, to explain why plaintiffs waited until December 2013 to

18

begin seeking the information they now want to extend the discovery period for. Plaintiffs’ lack

19

of attention to discovery during the ample period allowed by the schedule set by the Court causes

20

the Court to deny most of the additional discovery they seek.

21
22
23
24

With respect to the five categories sought by plaintiffs, the Court orders:
1. Mark Allen. Request denied. There is no reason that his contact information could not have
been discovered and his deposition taken during the normal course of discovery.
2. James Robert Sears. Request denied. If information from All American Scaffold matters in

25

this case, plaintiffs should have initiated discovery earlier so that follow up depositions could

26

be scheduled within the discovery period.

27

3. Cristina Mejia. Defendants have agreed to provide documents on February 4, 2014, and are

28

required to do so. The production should comply with defendants’ obligations under the

1
2

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. Accounting Firm of Ireland Eckley, LLP. Plaintiffs may take the deposition of the accountant

3

most knowledgeable about the work that firm performs for K&M Industries, given Mr.

4

Walker’s apparent lack of knowledge about basic facts concerning that company in during

5

what was apparently a PMK deposition of K&M Industries. The scope of the accountant’s

6

deposition is limited to topics reasonably framed by the categories of questions asked of Mr.

7

Walker in the deposition of K&M Industries, as generally identified in the joint letter. That

8

deposition should occur as soon as practicable.
5. Comerica Bank. Defendants have agreed to the discovery deadline extension for documents

10

subpoenaed by plaintiffs within the discovery period from Comerica Bank, and the Court so

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

orders. No other subpoenas were served, and the request to extend the discovery period to

12

allow service of the other subpoenas is denied.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2