Steshenko v. McKay et al

Filing 683

ORDER GRANTING LIMITED FURTHER DISCOVERY, VACATING TRIAL DATE, AND SETTING FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE. Further Status Conference set for 7/31/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/1/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
GREGORY NICHOLAS STESHENKO,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

THOMAS MCKAY, et al.,

15

No. C 09-5543 RS
ORDER GRANTING LIMITED
FURTHER DISCOVERY, VACATING
TRIAL DATE, AND SETTING
FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE

Defendants.
____________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery and, as a consequence, to continue the trial date.

18

Factors that may be considered when weighing a discretionary re-opening of discovery include:

19

“1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the non-moving party

20

would be prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the

21

guidelines established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in

22

light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the

23

discovery will lead to relevant evidence.” U.S. Ex Rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft, 63 F.3d

24

1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995) vacated on other grounds, 520 U.S. 939 (1997). While some of these

25

factors inarguably weigh against granting plaintiff’s request, on balance, the interests of justice

26

support allowing limited further discovery. Although it may be frustrating to defendants and

27

witnesses who have arranged their schedules with the current trial date in mind, the cognizable

28

1

prejudice resulting from a relatively short additional delay at this juncture is minimal, and is

2

outweighed by the interest in resolving issues on the merits.

3

The individual depositions plaintiff proposes to take will be allowed, as the potential for

4

discovery of relevant, non-cumulative evidence from such percipient witnesses is manifest. The

5

request to take a deposition of the College under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

6

Procedure is denied, without prejudice. If plaintiff remains of the view that such a deposition is

7

critical to his trial preparation he may, within one week of the issuance of this order, file a letter

8

brief not to exceed three pages, proposing a scope for such a deposition and explaining why it is

9

likely to obtain material evidence that is not cumulative to the discovery previously obtained by
plaintiff in this action. Defendants may file a responsive letter brief, also not to exceed three

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

pages, within one week thereafter.

12

Plaintiff may immediately serve the document requests and interrogatories attached as

13

exhibits to his motion. Defendants shall respond in such manner as is allowed under the Federal

14

Rules of Civil Procedure.

15

The existing trial date is vacated. The parties shall appear for a further status conference

16

on July 31, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., with the expectation that the earliest possible trial date will be set

17

at that time. The parties shall file a joint status statement one week in advance of that conference,

18

and shall include therein trial date proposals and any anticipated scheduling conflicts.

19
20
21
22

Dated: 5/1/14
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2