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)

Download PDF
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

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?