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)

Download PDF
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

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?