Daniellle Parker v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC et al

Filing 58

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying Plaintiff's 54 4/19/17 Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order; ORDER denying Plaintiff's 55 4/21/17 Motion to Allow the Completion of Depositions. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DANIELLE PARKER,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
MANAGEMENT, LLC,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-05673-TEH (KAW)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE;
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ALLOW COMPLETION
OF DEPOSITIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 54 & 55

12
13

On April 10, 2017, the undersigned issued an order pertaining to Defendant’s request to

14

compel Plaintiff’s appearance for the remainder of her deposition. (Dkt. No. 45.) Therein, the

15

Court stated “that Plaintiff’s complaint regarding the difficulty in taking the deposition of key

16

defense witness Karen Pierce is not before the undersigned.” Id. Nonetheless, the Court generally

17

stated that “the parties must work together to find a mutually agreeable date to take Ms. Pierce’s

18

deposition, as required by the Northern District’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct, which does

19

not look kindly upon gamesmanship.” Id. This was in an attempt to encourage the parties to meet

20

and confer as required by the Northern District’s Guidelines in an attempt to obviate the need for

21

further court intervention.

22

On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel compliance with the April 10, 2017

23

order. (Dkt. No. 54.) Despite Plaintiff’s protestations to the contrary, the order was not

24

tantamount to an order requiring that the deposition take place—as this issue was not before the

25

undersigned— but, rather, urged the parties to meet and confer regarding scheduling. Based on

26

the information provided, the Court was not in a position to conclude that Ms. Pierce’s individual

27

deposition was even properly noticed. See Civil L.R. 37-3 (“Discovery requests that call for

28

responses or depositions after the applicable discovery cut-off are not enforceable, except by order

1
2

of the Court for good cause shown.”).
On April 21, 2017, in what appears to be an abundance of caution, Plaintiff filed a motion

3

to allow for the completion of the depositions of Karen Pierce and Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 55.) On

4

April 24, 2017, Defendant filed oppositions to both motions. (Dkt. No. 57.)

5

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance is DENIED on the
grounds that there was no formal court order compelling Ms. Pierce’s individual deposition in

7

which to compel compliance because the dispute pertaining to her deposition was not before the

8

Court. Moreover, this dispute is not one which “could not have [been] filed earlier because they

9

did not receive the necessary deposition transcripts.” (Dkt. No. 52.) Similarly, Plaintiff’s motion

10

to allow for the completion of Karen Pierce and Plaintiff’s depositions is also DENIED, as both

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

motions are beyond the scope of the limited extension of the deadline to file discovery disputes

12

rendering the disputes untimely. See id.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 24, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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