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)

Download PDF
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

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?