Haley v. Cohen & Steers Capital Management, Inc. et al

Filing 228

ORDER by Judge Hamilton Re 217 Motion for Administrative Relief (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

JANET HALEY,
Plaintiff(s),

8
9

ORDER RE MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

COHEN & STEERS CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.

No. C 10-3856 PJH

12

Defendant(s).
_______________________________/

13
Before the court is yet another motion for administrative relief filed by plaintiff in
14
which she requests an “extension of the non-expert discovery cutoff date for the limited
15
purpose of admitting plaintiff’s recently discovered handwritten notes into evidence and
16
allowing defendants to take plaintiff’s limited deposition.” As the caption of the motion
17
reflects, plaintiff seeks three things: 1) an extension of the fact discovery cutoff date, 2) a
18
ruling as to the admissibility of her recently discovered handwritten notes into evidence,
19
and 3) permission for defendants to take her deposition regarding the notes. While it is
20
arguable that none of these three subjects are properly the subject of a motion for
21
administrative relief, which is generally reserved for requests to exceed the page limitations
22
for briefs or to file matters under seal, given that the court has entertained prior
23
administrative motions pertaining to the discovery deadlines, the court will do so again.
24
However, the admissibility of evidence is an entirely inappropriate subject for a motion for
25
administrative relief.
26
It is not clear to the court why plaintiff is requesting an extension of the January 13,
27
2012 discovery cutoff date. She found the notes that are the subject of this motion on
28
January 19, 2012 and immediately produced them to defendants. She doesn’t seek to

1

conduct additional discovery. It appears that what is actually sought by this request is a

2

nunc pro tunc order enlarging the discovery period so that the notes are deemed to have

3

been timely produced. However, plaintiff has not established good cause for such an order

4

given that she hasn’t bothered to explain how she found the notes or why she had been

5

unable to find them before the discovery cutoff date. The court finds that plaintiff has not

6

shown that she acted diligently and accordingly, has not shown good cause for the request.

7

It is DENIED.

8
9

With regard to the request, ostensibly on defendants’ behalf, that they be permitted
to take her deposition about the notes to mitigate any prejudice to them for the late
disclosure, the request is MOOT in light of the denial of the motion to extend the discovery

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

deadline.

12

Lastly, with regard to admissibility of the notes, it appears that plaintiff’s request

13

assumes that if the notes are deemed to have been timely produced, they would

14

automatically be admissible for use in the summary judgment proceedings and/or at trial.

15

Plaintiff is incorrect. The court has not reviewed the notes but based upon plaintiff’s own

16

representation as to their contents, it is evident that they are replete with hearsay and

17

double hearsay, and even if they had been timely produced, their admissibility would surely

18

be the subject of evidentiary objections during summary judgment proceedings or motions

19

in limine before trial. Any request for an order as to admissibility without briefing and

20

argument is DENIED.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2012
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2