Hardin v. Mendocino Coast District Hospital et al

Filing 224

Discovery Order. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 8/30/2019. (tshlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ELLEN HARDIN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-05554-JST (TSH)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS

v.
MENDOCINO COAST DISTRICT
HOSPITAL, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 187

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On August 14, 2019, Plaintiff Ellen Hardin filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil

14

Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(i) for leave to take a total of 17 non-expert depositions, and she noticed it

15

for hearing on September 5, 2019. ECF No. 187. In her motion, Hardin argues that these

16

depositions are necessary to allow her a fair and adequate opportunity to develop and prepare this

17

complex case. She also argues that the requested additional discovery is not unreasonably

18

cumulative or duplicative and that it is proportional under Rule 26. Defendants oppose the

19

motion. ECF Nos. 219, 220. They observe that Hardin’s noticed hearing date violates Civil Local

20

Rule 7-2(a) because it is less than 35 days after the filing of the motion. Substantively, they argue

21

that Hardin has not made the requisite showing under Rule 30 for additional depositions, that two

22

of the proposed additional deponents are MCDH’s outside counsel and should not be deposed for

23

that reason as well, and that the remaining proposed deponents have merely cumulative or

24

duplicative information.

25

The Court deems this motion suitable for decision without oral argument. The Court

26

denies Hardin’s motion, without reaching the merits, because it conflicts with the fact discovery

27

cutoff, which is today. See ECF No. 159 (resetting fact discovery cutoff to August 30, 2019); see

28

also ECF Nos. 202, 221 (denying Hardin’s motions to extend the fact discovery cutoff). Whether

1

or not Hardin’s motion would have had merit had it been brought at an earlier stage in this case,

2

the relief she requests – permission to take additional depositions beyond the default limit of ten in

3

Rule 30 – cannot be granted now because fact discovery is over and additional depositions may

4

not be noticed or taken.1

5

To be clear, if Hardin had obtained permission earlier in the case for these additional

6

depositions, and if the Defendants had wrongfully refused to make the witnesses available, the fact

7

discovery cutoff would not have precluded this Court from ordering those depositions to take

8

place. Under Civil Local Rule 37-3, the last day to move to compel is seven days after the close of

9

fact discovery, and one result that may come from a motion to compel is an order compelling
additional discovery. But here, Hardin is not moving to compel a response to discovery she was

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

previously entitled to take. She is asking in the first instance to be given permission to take more

12

than ten depositions. And she filed the motion asking for this relief 16 days before the close of

13

fact discovery and noticed the hearing for five days after the close of fact discovery. This motion

14

is simply untimely.
Hardin’s motion is DENIED.2

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: August 30, 2019

20
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

There is an exception for three depositions as stated in ECF No. 222, which the parties stipulated
and the Court ordered could be taken after the close of fact discovery.
2
For the same reason, Hardin’s discovery letter No. 3 is also DENIED. See ECF No. 211 at 4
(“The Court tables consideration of discovery letter No. 3 pending Judge Tigar’s ruling on
Hardin’s motion to extend the case schedule.”); ECF No. 221 (Judge Tigar’s order denying
Hardin’s motion to extend the case schedule).
2