Zaparolli v. American Airlines Group Inc.

Filing 48

Discovery Order re ECF Nos. 46 and 47. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 4/5/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division United States District Court Northern District of California 11 ISABELLE ZAPAROLLI, 12 Case No. 15-cv-02095-LB Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER RE LIMITED-DUTY EMPLOYEES AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP INC., 15 Re: ECF Nos. 46 and 47 Defendant. 16 17 18 The parties filed updated discovery briefs about employees with lifting restrictions. (See ECF Nos. 46 and 47.1) 19 Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure describes the basic scope of: 20 24 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).2 Applying this standard, and for the reasons stated previously on the record 21 22 23 26 27 28 1 Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the tops of documents. 2 The main text sets out the current version of Rule 26(b), which was amended effective December ORDER (No. 15-cv-02095-LB) 1 and in the order at ECF No. 45, the court will consider whether short depositions of CSAs 2 Elizabeth Shumate and Cynthia Pugliaresi are appropriate. Given that they are on medical leave, 3 the court is not certain what burdens might exist that might affect the court’s assessment of 4 whether the depositions are proportional to the needs of the case. Moreover, the court does not 5 have information about what documents American Airlines already produced and what more it 6 might produce under a protective order that might obviate the need for a deposition and also affect 7 the court’s proportionality inquiry. 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Under the circumstances, the court directs the parties to confer, and if they cannot agree on an approach, offer their best compromises in a short updated discovery brief. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 5, 2016 ______________________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1, 2015. “[I]t is well established that a court generally applies the law in effect at the time of its decision, and that if the law changes, . . . the . . . court applies the new rule.” Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 973 n. 21 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Thorpe v. Durham Hous. Auth., 393 U.S. 268, 281 (1969)). 2 ORDER (No. 15-cv-02095-LB)

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?