Batts v. County of Santa Clara

Filing 423

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 381 defendants' motion to vacate a portion of 274 September 14, 2010 discovery order. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2011)

1
2

*E-FILED 08-05-2011*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

12
13
14
15
16

No. C08-00286 EJD (HRL)

LAILA BATTS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF
SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 DISCOVERY
ORDER

v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, PETER
CRANDALL, CHRISTINA ARQUERO, and
DOES 3-20,

[Re: Docket No. 381]

Defendants.
/

17
18

Discovery has been an ongoing and fiercely fought battle in this litigation. Both sides

19

have filed their fair share of motions; and, many of those motions each raised myriad issues as

20

to which the parties could not agree.

21

Although discovery closed long ago, the parties continue, even now, to wrangle over

22

depositions. In this latest skirmish, defendants move to vacate the portion of this court’s

23

September 14, 2010 order (Docket No. 274) giving plaintiff leave to conduct six additional

24

depositions beyond the presumptive ten-deposition limit. The dispute over additional

25

depositions was but one of about ten issues raised by plaintiff’s underlying motion (Docket No.

26

184). And, as noted in the September 14, 2010 order, plaintiff’s request to take additional

27

depositions struck this court merely as an effort to tie up loose ends in discovery. Nevertheless,

28

the court exercised its discretion and gave plaintiff an opportunity to take six additional

1

depositions if she wished. Defendants now move to prevent those depositions from proceeding,

2

arguing that (1) additional depositions now are not feasible and (2) plaintiff was not diligent, in

3

any event, in pursuing those additional depositions.

4

Prior to the reassignment of this case, Judge Ware referred defendants’ motion to the

5

undersigned for disposition. The matter was deemed submitted without oral argument. CIV.

6

L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the moving and responding papers, this court grants the motion.

7

Plaintiff’s argument about waiver of objections to the September 14, 2010 order is

8

unconvincing. Defendants do not contend that the underlying order is wrong. Rather, they

9

argue that it would be unfair to have to now carry out the portion of the order re additional

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

depositions.
The primary basis for defendants’ motion is moot. Indeed, the pretrial filing deadlines,

12

pretrial conference, and trial have been re-set for dates later this fall. As noted above, however,

13

this court was not overwhelmed as to the purported need for the additional depositions. And,

14

the record presented indicates that plaintiff was not diligent in pursuing them—conduct which

15

suggests that she did not really need more depositions after all. Indeed, it seems that plaintiff

16

said nothing about those depositions until defendants filed the instant motion seeking to prevent

17

them from going forward. Plaintiff’s counsel says that he was busy on other cases. But, there is

18

no indication that the deadlines or trials in those other matters were a surprise. Plaintiff says

19

that the depositions might be helpful, but she does not argue that she needs them. Nor does she

20

say how she will be prejudiced (if at all) if she is prevented from taking them. Instead, she

21

essentially says that she is entitled to take them. But, for the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s

22

claims of entitlement are stale. Moreover, if past history in this matter is any guide, it seems

23

likely that permitting additional depositions now would lead to even more discovery disputes

24

which might well impact the current case schedule.

25
26

As a matter of managing discovery, which closed long ago, this court therefore will
relieve defendants of their obligation to produce any further witnesses for deposition. Their

27
28
2

1
2
3

motion to vacate that portion of the September 14, 2010 discovery order is granted.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 5, 2011

4
HOWARD R. LLOYD
5

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

5:08-cv-00286-EJD Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Aryn Paige Harris

3

Barry Clement Marsh

4

Blaise S. Curet

5

Gregory Joseph Sebastinelli [e-mail],
[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

6
Jeremy L. Friedman

[e-mail]

7
Scott R Kanter

[e-mail]

8
Stephen Ryan Wong

[e-mail]

9
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4