Murray v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. et al

Filing 166

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS 162 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2012)

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