Harris v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

Filing 114

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 81 LEAVE TO REOPEN DISCOVERY CONCERNING PLAINTIFF'S PHONE RECORDS. (denying as moot 82 Motion for Discovery). (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STARVONA HARRIS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.
BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,

Case No. 15-cv-00657-HSG
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
REOPEN DISCOVERY CONCERNING
PLAINTIFF'S PHONE RECORDS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 81, 82

Defendant.
Discovery as to Plaintiff’s individual claims ended on February 15, 2016. Dkt. No. 58.

13

Defendant contends that it did not know that “Harris could obtain phone records and that Metro

14

PCS was her carrier” before February 18, 2016, because Plaintiff provided untruthful or inaccurate

15

statements in her earlier deposition and responses to discovery. Dkt. No. 81 at 2. Plaintiff

16

responds that Harris objected to Defendant’s specific requests for her phone records and that

17

Harris has no cell phone records in her possession, custody or control. Dkt. No. 81 at 4-5.

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for

19

good cause and with the judge’s consent.” “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily

20

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

21

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Committee’s Notes

22

(1983 amendment) (noting court may modify schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the

23

diligence of the party seeking the extension”)

24

Although Plaintiff contends that Defendant mischaracterizes Plaintiff’s deposition

25

testimony, Plaintiff does not specifically refute Defendant’s argument regarding when Plaintiff

26

revealed Metro PCS was her carrier. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to suggest that

27

Defendant has not been diligent or that Defendant could have reasonably acquired this information

28

earlier had it been diligent. Having reviewed the February 18 deposition testimony, Dkt. No. 78 at

1

12-15, the Court finds that good cause exists to reopen discovery as to the limited issue of

2

Plaintiff’s phone records and refers any motion to compel concerning the phone records to Judge

3

Westmore. The Court extends the fact discovery deadline as to Plaintiff’s individual claims as to

4

this matter only to October 13, 2016; the Court will not extend the deadline absent a showing of

5

good cause.

6
7
8
9

Additionally, in light of the Court’s summary judgment order, Dkt. No. 102, the Court
denies [82] as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 8/31/2016

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2