Steshenko v. McKay et al

Filing 542

ORDER RE OUTSTANDING LETTER BRIEFS 522 523 525 538 . Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on April 8, 2013. (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

GREGORY STESHENKO,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

THOMAS MCKAY, ET AL.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 09-CV-05543-RS (PSG)
ORDER RE OUTSTANDING LETTER
BRIEFS
(Re: Docket Nos. 522, 523, 525, 538)

Pursuant to the court’s June 19, 2012 order,1 the parties have filed a number of letter briefs

18
seeking leave to file additional discovery motions. On February 4, 2013, Defendants Thomas
19
20
21
22

McKay, Dorothy Nunn, Anne Lucero and Cabrillo Community College (collectively, the “College
Defendants”) requested permission to file a motion for a further deposition of Plaintiff Gregory
Steshenko (“Steshenko”), arguing that additional time is necessary to fairly examine the deponent
due to the large number of issues in this case and improper objections made by Steshenko.2 On

23
that same date, Defendants Kristine Scopazzi, Berthalupe Carrillo, Sally Newell, the Watsonville
24

Community Hospital (collectively, the “Hospital Defendants”) filed letter briefs requesting the

25
same relief, along with leave to file a motion to compel Steshenko to answer questions under oath
26
27

1

See Docket No. 364.

28

2

See Docket No. 525.
1

Case No.: C 09-5543 RS (PSG)
ORDER

1

at deposition, to produce documents Steshenko used to refresh his recollection in preparation for

2

his testimony, and an accompanying award of sanctions.3

3

Civil Local Rule 37-3 states that the no motions to compel may be filed more than 7 days
after the discovery cut-off. Here, discovery closed in October of 2012. However, as Judge

5

Seeborg noted, that does not “preclude parties from seeking relief related to Steshenko’s

6

deposition, which went forward after the close of discovery, provided they sought relief within

7

seven days of that event.”4 Steshenko was deposed on December 4, 2012. Defendants did not

8

bring their concerns to the court regarding the deposition until February 4, 2013, two months after

9

the deposition took place. Defendants offer no justification for this delay in any of their letter

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

briefs.5 Defendants should have been aware of the inadequacy of Steshenko’s deposition at the

11

time of said deposition in December 2012, so the court fails to see how the delay could be justified.

12

Accordingly, the requested relief is untimely and must be denied.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: April 8, 2013

16

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3

See Docket No. 522, 523.

4

See Docket No. 535 at 2.

26
27
5

28

See Civ. L.R. 37-3 (discovery motions brought after the deadline are not enforceable, unless the
court finds that the parties have shown good cause).
2
Case No.: C 09-5543 RS (PSG)
ORDER