Harris et al v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

Filing 65

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 62 7/28/17 Discovery Letter Brief re: Plaintiff Starvona Harris's Deposition. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STARVONA HARRIS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,

ORDER REGARDING 7/28/17 JOINT
LETTER RE: PLAINTIFF STARVONA
HARRIS'S DEPOSITION
Re: Dkt. No. 62

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 4:17-cv-00446-HSG (KAW)

12
13

On July 28, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter concerning Defendant Best Buy’s request

14

to depose Plaintiff Starvona Harris in the instant lawsuit. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 62 at 2.) This is

15

the third class action lawsuit Ms. Harris has filed against Best Buy, and she has twice undergone

16

deposition in the original 2015 action, which totaled 7.5 hours. Id.
Here, Plaintiffs seek a protective order to preclude a third deposition and seeking other

17
18

duplicative written discovery1 on the grounds that this creates an undue burden and expense for

19

Ms. Harris. (Joint Letter at 3.) Ms. Harris is a single mother who works a “slightly more” than

20

minimum wage job in the Bay Area, and she would not be paid for her day off. Id.
In opposition, Defendant argues that Ms. Harris decided to file multiple lawsuits, and that

21
22

does not excuse her from her discovery obligations. (Joint Letter at 4.) Best Buy represents that

23

Ms. Harris’s 2015 lawsuit was dismissed after her federal claim was dismissed and she declined to

24

amend to assert continued jurisdiction under CAFA. (Joint Letter at 5.) Instead, Ms. Harris filed

25
1

26
27
28

The Court declines to make any determination regarding allegedly “duplicative written
discovery” based on the contents of this joint letter, as the issue is not properly briefed. The parties
are encouraged to meet and confer regarding this issue to avoid unnecessarily requiring court
intervention. The Court notes that the parties filed five joint letters in the span on five days—
including this one— which is uncommon and suggests that they are not properly meeting and
conferring. (See Dkt. Nos. 56, 57, 60-62.)

1

two additional lawsuits. (Joint Letter at 5-6.) Best Buy contends that the instant lawsuit adds a

2

new co-plaintiff, redefines all of the classes and subclasses, and splits claims between this lawsuit

3

and the other pending lawsuit. (Joint Letter at 6.)

4

Ms. Harris decided to file three lawsuits, and the instant case involves an additional co-

5

plaintiff, different claims, and the redefinition of the classes and subclasses. Defendant, therefore,

6

is entitled to take her deposition for 7 hours. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Accordingly, the Court

7

DENIES Ms. Harris’s motion for protective order. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the

8

scheduling of her deposition.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: August 15, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2