Cooper v. United Air Lines, Inc.

Filing 59

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 56 Discovery Letter Brief RE: RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

DRUCILLA COOPER,

Case No. 13-cv-02870-JSC

Plaintiff,
10
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER BRIEF RE: RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
Re: Dkt. No. 56

13

14
15

Plaintiff Drucilla Cooper filed this employment discrimination action against her employer

16

United Airlines, Inc. alleging race, gender, and disability discrimination, as well as retaliation

17

claims. Fact discovery closed on September 11, 2014. On the deadline to file motions to compel,

18

see Civil Local Rule 37-3, Plaintiff sought an extension of time to move to compel with respect to

19

a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition because the transcript for the deposition was

20

unavailable by the deadline. The Court granted a brief extension and the now pending Joint

21

Discovery Letter Brief followed. After carefully considering the arguments and briefing

22

submitted, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and

23

DENIES Plaintiff’s request to compel additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony.

24
25

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-3, “no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed

26

more than 7 days after the fact discovery cut-off.” On the deadline to file such a motion, Plaintiff

27

sought an extension of time “to file a Motion to Compel regarding Defendant’s failure to produce

28

a 30(b)(6) designee sufficiently educated to respond to questions concerning the Company’s

1

Talent Selection process for the following reasons: The transcript for the 30(b)(6) deposition is not

2

yet available.” (Dkt. No. 50 at 2.) The Court granted Plaintiff a brief two-week extension of time

3

to move to compel on this one matter (Dkt. No. 52), and the parties subsequently filed the now

4

pending Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (Dkt. No. 56.)

5

Plaintiff is seeking two categories of information related to previously propounded

6

Interrogatories: (1) the process by which positions at United could be reorganized, and (2) the

7

reasons why Plaintiff was not reinstated in her position as supervisor. Specifically, Plaintiff is

8

seeking to compel testimony regarding Topics 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 22, and 23 from

9

Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice served on August 28, 2014. (Dkt. Nos. 56 at n.5 & n.6;

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

56-1 at 2-6.) Plaintiff’s Motion fails.
First, in advance of the deposition Defendant objected to each of those topics and stated

12

that it did not intend to produce a witness on those topics, much less prepare Darlene Marvin-

13

Nilson, the Rule 30(b)(6) designee, to testify regarding the topics during her September 9, 2014

14

deposition. (Dkt. 56-2 at 9-11.) Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce a

15

witness educated about these topics is wholly unrelated to the availability of the transcript from

16

the 30(b)(6) deposition.

17

Second, Plaintiff has not cited any portion of Ms. Marvin-Nilson’s deposition testimony

18

wherein she refused to answer questions regarding any of these topics. The only portion of Ms.

19

Marvin-Nilson’s deposition testimony Plaintiff cites relates to United’s Reduction in Force

20

packages. (Dkt. No. 56 at n.3.) Although Plaintiff states that “at the 30(b)(6) deposition, United

21

refused to answer questions regarding categories 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, and 32,”

22

Plaintiff has not provided a citation or excerpt from her deposition to this effect; indeed, Plaintiff

23

has not included any excerpts from Ms. Marvin-Nilson’s deposition as an exhibit to the letter

24

brief. Defendant, however, did attach the portion of Ms. Marvin-Nilson’s testimony which was

25

offered in her capacity as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee and nowhere in that excerpt did Plaintiff’s

26

counsel question Ms. Marvin-Nilson about topics 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31,

27

and 32. (Dkt. No. 52-2 at 12-18.)

28

The Court gave Plaintiff leave to file a motion to compel further Rule 30(b)(6) testimony
2

1

after the deadline based on her representation that the previously offered Rule 30(b)(6) deponent

2

was insufficiently knowledgeable regarding noticed topics and Plaintiff needed the transcript from

3

her deposition prior to filing a motion to compel. Plaintiff has instead moved to compel regarding

4

topics Defendants never designated the Rule 30(b)(6) witness to cover and topics that Plaintiff did

5

not even attempt to elicit testimony about from Ms. Marvin-Nilson. As Plaintiff’s motion is

6

unrelated to the reason Plaintiff gave for needing the extension, and is therefore beyond the scope

7

of the Court’s order allowing a late motion, the motion is untimely and therefore DENIED.

8

This Order disposes of Docket No. 56.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: October 15, 2014
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3