Valencia et al v. French Connection Bakery, Inc. et al

Filing 101

ORDER by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull Denying 96 Plaintiffs' Motion to Subpoena Certain Documents Concerning a Third-party Witness Ann Joe after Discovery Cut-Off. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 8/21/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 See, e.g., Defendants French Connction Bakery Inc. & Amirali Amini Aliabadi's Case Management Conference Statement, filed herein on 2/12/08 (Docket No. 34) at 2:1-3. OR D E R, page 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

CESAR SANTACRUZ, JAVIER VALENCIA, et al.,

) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) FRENCH CONNECTION BAKERY, INC., ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ )

Case No.: C 07-1118 PVT Case No.: C 08-0996 PVT ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SU BPO EN A CERTAIN DOCUMENTS CO N C ER N IN G A THIRD-PARTY WITNESS AN N JOE AFTER DISCOVERY CUT-OFF

On August 16, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion to Subpoena Certain Documents Concerning a Third-party Witness Ann Joe after Discovery Cut-Off. Having reviewed the papers submitted by Plaintiffs, the court finds it appropriate to issue this order without further briefing or oral argument. Based on the moving papers and the file herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. Discovery in this case closed on April 30, 2009. Plaintiffs do not explain why they did not seek this information before the discovery cut-off. Plaintiffs have long known that there is a dispute regarding the dates that Plaintiff Cesar Santacruz worked for Defendant.1 While discovery was still open, Plaintiffs could have easily

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

propounded an interrogatory to obtain contact information for other individuals who worked for Defendants during the disputed time frame, and then interviewed and/or deposed those individuals to discover whether they recalled Plaintiff Santacruz working at the bakery during the disputed time frame. This would have allowed Plaintiff to locate and interview the witness they have now belatedly located. A showing of good cause is required to justify modification of a scheduling order. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) ("The scheduling order `control[s] the subsequent course of the action' unless modified by the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e). Orders entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified upon a showing of `good cause,' Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)..."). Plaintiffs had ample opportunity while discovery was open to seek the information they now seek. Plaintiffs' counsel's lack of diligence does not constitute good cause for modifying the scheduling order to allow this untimely discovery. Dated: 8/21/09 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge

OR D E R, page 2