Card v. Ralph Lauren Corporation et al

Filing 135

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUTOFF. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on April 9, 2021. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VICTORIA CARD,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-02553-JSC
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUTOFF

v.
RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 125

Defendants.

12
13

The deadline to complete fact discovery in this case has been extended twice. (Dkt. Nos.

14

98, 110.) The current fact discovery deadline was March 31, 2021. The expert disclosure deadline

15

was March 1, 2021. Although this case was removed to this Court on April 30, 2018, as of March

16

8, 2021, Plaintiff had not served any notices of deposition nor disclosed any experts. Finally, on

17

March 9, 2021, Plaintiff served a 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Plaintiff’s notice was untimely as the

18

Court’s civil standing order requires that all notices of deposition of fact witnesses be served at

19

least 30 days before the close of fact discovery. The Court imposed this rule because it is difficult

20

for depositions to be noticed and occur within 30 days; the rule thus ensures that fact discovery

21

can be completed by the discovery deadline.

22

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to continue the discovery deadlines.

23

(Dkt. No. 125.) The Court held a hearing on the motion on April 1, 2021. For the reasons stated

24

at the hearing, and for the reasons stated in Defendants’ opposition, Plaintiff has not shown good

25

cause for her failure to comply with the current deadline. Nonetheless, so that this case can be

26

decided on the merits, Plaintiff may take a 30(b)(6) deposition, but no others. Further, the Court

27

gave the parties until October 4, 2021 to disclose any experts.

28

A remaining issue is the scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition. The Court has reviewed

1

Plaintiff’s amended notice and concludes that Defendants need not prepare a witness on the

2

following topics: Nos. 2 (except questions regarding 2(b) are appropriate), 5, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19,

3

33, 34 and 41. The relevance of such topics, if any, is disproportional to the time needed to

4

prepare a witness, especially in light of the additional topics on which a witness needs to be

5

prepared.

6

Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion sought discovery sanctions. Defendants seek

7

fees and costs for responding to Plaintiff’s untimely discovery demands. Plaintiff has not had the

8

opportunity to respond. However, it is also not clear as to what discovery demands Defendants

9

refer. The Court is allowing the 30(b)(6) to go forward so no sanctions are warranted for
responding to the notice. And any response to the additional deposition notices was negligible.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

The request for sanctions is denied.

12

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 107, 125.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: April 9, 2021

15
16
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

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