Robinson v. The Chefs' Warehouse

Filing 118

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 117 8/11/17 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SHAON ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.

Case No. 3:15-cv-05421-RS (KAW)
ORDER REGARDING 8/11/17 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 117

THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE,
Defendant.

12
13

On August 11, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter concerning Defendant’s request for an

14

extension of time beyond the seven hour limit to depose named plaintiff Shaon Robinson under

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 117 at 1.) Plaintiffs’ deadline to file

16

their motion for class certification is August 31, 2017. Id. Defendant’s opposition is due on

17

October 5, 2017. Id.

18

On July 14, 2017, Mr. Robinson sat for approximately six hours of his deposition before

19

his counsel, Leonard Emma, stated that he had to leave. (Joint Letter at 1.) On July 17, 2017,

20

Defendant reached out to Plaintiffs to request that Mr. Robinson sit for deposition for an

21

additional day and a half. (Joint Letter at 1.) In the course of meeting and conferring, Plaintiffs

22

offered to produce Mr. Robinson for an additional 10 hours, five hours per day for two additional

23

days, “if Defendant agrees that will conclude his deposition,” thereby precluding Defendant from

24

later seeking additional time from the court. (Joint Letter at 2.) “Defendants have stated that they

25

will try to complete Plaintiff’s deposition in one-seven hour day, but will not waive their right to

26

seek an extension of time for good cause following meet and confer efforts.” (Joint Letter at 1.)

27

Plaintiffs then offered one additional day of deposition, so long as Defendant agreed not to seek

28

additional time unless it believed that “that Plaintiff's obstructionist misconduct at the second day

1

of deposition prevented Defendant from completing Plaintiff's deposition within one more day of

2

seven hours.” (Joint Letter at 2.)
Rule 30 requires that the court “allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2)

3

if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other

5

circumstance impedes or delays the examination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Here, Mr. Robinson is

6

the putative class representative of a class action involving eight causes of action for various wage

7

and hour claims. (Joint Letter at 3.) Additionally, he has alleged seven individual causes of action

8

alleging race and disability discrimination and harassment, failure to accommodate, and failure to

9

engage in the interactive process. Id. Defendant provides that it was unable to complete the

10

examination of the class action claims during the first deposition, and did not even begin to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

examine Plaintiff regarding his individual claims. Id.
The Court finds that it is unreasonable that Plaintiffs would seek to condition the further

12
13

examination of a named plaintiff, particularly in light of the large number of class and individual

14

claims, on agreeing not to seek relief for additional time. Accordingly, Defendant is permitted the

15

additional 10 hours of time originally offered by Plaintiffs,1 and may seek relief from the

16

undersigned should additional time be required to explore all of Mr. Robinson’s claims.

17

Additionally, given the looming class certification briefing schedule, Plaintiff shall sit for seven

18

hours on the first day and three hours on the second day.

19

Lastly, Mr. Robinson’s continued deposition is noticed for August 25, 2017. (Joint Letter

20

at 1.) Defendant claims that “Plaintiff refuses to sit for his deposition on that date.” (Joint Letter

21

at 1.) Plaintiffs did not address Mr. Robinson’s availability on the noticed date in their portion of

22

the joint letter. The parties are reminded of their obligation to meet and confer regarding the

23

scheduling of depositions, so the Court is confident that the parties can identify mutually agreeable

24

dates, several weeks before Defendant’s opposition to the motion for class certification is due,

25

///

26

///

27
1

28

The Court presumes that 10 hours offered included the remaining hour to which Defendant is
entitled under Rule 30(d)(1).
2

1

without further court intervention. See generally Northern District Guidelines for Professional

2

Conduct § 9.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 11, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
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
3