Velez et al v. Ancheta et al

Filing 25

DISCOVERY ORDER Re: Dkt. Nos. 22 23 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 1/29/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MARCIAL VELEZ,
Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

v.

Case No.14-cv-01182-NC
DISCOVERY ORDER

ADORA ANCHETA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 22, 23

Defendants.

14
15

This order addresses civil discovery disputes raised in a joint letter brief and

16

response. Dkt. Nos. 22, 23. In the interest of securing the “just, speedy, and inexpensive

17

determination” of this action, the Court will not repeat the case history and the arguments

18

presented by the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. In sum, this case presents a wage and hour

19

employment dispute in which plaintiff Velez seeks to recover from employer defendants

20

on behalf of himself and other employees under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004

21

(PAGA). The deadline for all non-expert fact discovery was December 19, 2014; expert

22

disclosures are due in two days, January 30; trial is set for June 8, 2015.

23

The Court now rules on the issues presented:

24

1. Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, RPD Nos. 4, 29, 41.

25

Plaintiff seeks to compel the production of additional documents from defendants in

26

three categories. The details of the requests and the objections are not critical, because the

27

requests are late. The deadline for non-expert fact discovery was December 19, 2014.

28

Dkt. No. 13. Under Local Rule 37-3, where the Court sets a fact discovery deadline,
14-cv-01182-NC

1

motions to compel are due within 7 days after the deadline, except by order of the Court

2

for good cause shown.

3

Here, plaintiff’s request to compel the production of additional documents was due

4

December 29 at the latest. Yet the letter brief was filed January 27, almost one month after

5

the deadline. Is there good cause to allow the late filing? The Court says no. First,

6

defendants served their document responses on August 22, 2014, so plaintiff had ample

7

time to evaluate the responses and submit a timely request to compel. Second, there is no

8

record that defendants agreed to extend the time period for a request to compel these

9

documents; and the Court never granted an extension.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s untimely request to compel additional
documents is denied. The Court need not reach the other objections raised by defendants.

12

2. Plaintiff’s request to compel additional depositions.

13

Plaintiff seeks to compel three depositions: Adora Ancheta, Mae Flores, and

14

defendants’ “person most knowledgeable” on various subject matters (but not specified in

15

the letter brief) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Dkt. No. 22 at 2. The question presented is

16

whether there was “reasonable notice” of the depositions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). After

17

sending an email on the evening of December 9, 2014, asking about available dates for

18

Flores and Ancheta, plaintiff’s counsel on December 10 served deposition notices setting

19

depositions for December 16, 17, and 18. Defendants objected to the notices as

20

unreasonable and did not appear. The parties agreed to extend the time period for a motion

21

to compel the depositions.

22

Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s request to compel is granted in part. As

23

to Ancheta and Flores, the depositions are compelled. These depositions must occur by

24

February 13. The parties must confer with each other and agree upon dates, times, and

25

locations for the depositions. Plaintiff’s deposition time is limited to four hours for each

26

witness, absent a further Court order upon a showing of good cause.

27
28

As to the “person most knowledgeable” deposition, the request to compel is denied.
First, less than ten days of notice to identify and produce a 30(b)(6) witness was
14-cv-01182-NC

2

1

unreasonable. Second, plaintiff has failed to introduce evidence that counsel consulted

2

with defendants about scheduling this deposition before noticing the deposition. NDCA

3

L.R. 30-1 (requiring confer before notice).

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: January 29, 2015

8

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14-cv-01182-NC

3