Murray v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. et al

Filing 166


Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 MARTIN MURRAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 6 7 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Docket No. 162) Plaintiff, v. 8 SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., et al., 9 Defendants. ________________________________/ 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California No. C 09-5744 CW 11 On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff Martin Murray filed a motion 12 to extend the class certification fact discovery deadline and for 13 leave to exceed the number of depositions permitted under Federal 14 Rule of Civil Procedure 30. 15 the discovery deadline from November 12, 2012 to November 26, 16 2012, so that he can take depositions of five additional 17 witnesses. 18 Products, Inc. oppose the motion. 19 of discovery is unwarranted because (1) Plaintiff has already 20 taken or noticed thirteen depositions at this point and 21 (2) Plaintiff has complete access to all of the documents produced 22 in a similar case currently pending in the Northern District of 23 Illinois, mitigating his need for further discovery here. 24 Thorogood v. Sears, No. 1:06-cv-1999. 25 Plaintiff specifically asks to extend Defendants Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Electrolux Home They argue that the extension See After reviewing the parties’ papers, the Court finds that 26 Plaintiff has justified an extension of the November 12 discovery 27 deadline in order to depose two witnesses -- specifically, one 28 Content Manager for Sears’ online laundry products and one new 1 Rule 30(b)(6) witness for Electrolux. 2 need for these depositions by showing that Defendants’ previous 3 Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses were not qualified to testify in depth 4 about Defendants’ marketing practices or content relating to the 5 specific appliances at the center of this litigation. 6 Plaintiff has justified its Plaintiff has not, however, shown why he needs to depose the 7 other three witnesses he identified in his motion. 8 witnesses appear unlikely to provide anything more than 9 duplicative testimony and Plaintiff has not made a “particularized These other United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 showing” of his need for their depositions. 11 v. Atrua Technologies, Inc., 2008 WL 5120767, *1 (N.D. Cal.) (“A 12 party seeking to exceed the presumptive number of depositions must 13 make a particularized showing of the need for the additional 14 discovery.”). 15 See Authentec, Inc. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to depose two 16 additional witnesses on the issue of class certification, as 17 outlined above. 18 forthwith and Defendants shall provide responsive witnesses to sit 19 for them. 20 extended from November 12, 2012 to November 21, 2012. 21 need to extend the deadline beyond the Thanksgiving holiday as 22 Plaintiff has requested. 23 Plaintiff shall notice these depositions The deadline for class certification fact discovery is There is no IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 Dated: 11/8/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 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?