Ansari v. Electronic Document Processing, Inc et al
Filing
58
Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 53 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ALLEN ANSARI,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT PROCESSING, )
INC., a California corporation; DUSTIN K.
)
FERRO, individually and in his official capacity; )
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case No. 5:12-CV-01245-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE
AND CONTINUE ALL SCHEDULED
DATES 60 DAYS
On February 15, 2013, Plaintiff Allen Ansari (“Plaintiff”) filed an administrative motion
19
seeking to extend the February 15, 2013 deadline for discovery and continue all scheduled dates in
20
the case by 60 days. See ECF No. 53. Plaintiff states that Plaintiff deposed certain employees of
21
Defendant Electronic Document Processing (“EDP”) on February 13 and 14, 2013. Id. at 2.
22
Plaintiff states that, at these depositions, “it became clear that there are many documents in the
23
possession, custody[,] or control of EDP[ that are] responsive to [Plaintiff’s] discovery requests[
24
and] that have not been produced.” Plaintiff further states that, on February 14, 2013, Magistrate
25
Judge Lloyd ruled on the parties’ Discovery Dispute Joint Report #1 (ECF No. 47) and ordered
26
EDP to produce electronic spreadsheet data of Defendants’ service attempts on persons other than
27
the Plaintiff. ECF No. 53 at 2. Plaintiff represents that Plaintiff will require additional time to
28
1
Case No. 5:12-CV-01245-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND
CONTINUE ALL SCHEDULED DATES 60 DAYS
1
review the new information and also, potentially, to “depos[e]… [Federal Rule of Evidence] 404(b)
2
witnesses.” Id. at
3
Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request for an extension of the dates and deadlines in this
case. See ECF No. 55. Defendants represent that there are no new documents to be produced. Id.
5
at 2. Defendants contend that Judge Lloyd’s Order merely requires Defendants to produce certain
6
spreadsheets containing information relating to individuals served by Defendant Justin Ferro that
7
were previously produced in hard-copy with redactions of the individuals’ personal information
8
(e.g. addresses), in electronic form and without the redactions. Id. Defendants represent that they
9
will comply with Judge Lloyd’s Order by February 28, 2013 (the date set forth in the Order). Id.
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
4
Defendants further contend that Plaintiff’s request for more time to interview and depose potential
11
Rule 404(b) witnesses is in fact an effort to solicit witnesses who will testify that, like Plaintiff,
12
they were not served by Defendants. Id.
13
The Court declines to extend the discovery deadline or to continue any of the other dates in
14
this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that: “A schedule may be modified
15
only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
16
make a showing of good cause to extend the case schedule. Plaintiff contends that “there are many
17
documents… that have not been produced.” ECF No. 53 at 1-2. However, Plaintiff does not
18
identify what these documents are. Plaintiff also contends that Plaintiff will require additional time
19
to “gain EDP’s compliance with” Judge Lloyd’s Order. Id. at 2. However, Defendants represent
20
that they will produce the spreadsheet discussed in Judge Lloyd’s Order by the February 28, 2013
21
deadline set forth in the Order. Plaintiff has identified no evidence supporting the conclusion that a
22
60 day extension of the discovery deadline is required in order to ensure Defendants produce a
23
spreadsheet. Finally, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s vague assertion that, after receiving
24
the spreadsheet, Plaintiff will need to take additional discovery and to depose additional potential
25
404(b) witnesses. See id. at 3. Indeed, to the extent that Plaintiff is simply intending to depose
26
new witnesses to gain evidence that Defendant Ferro falsely represented that he had served those
27
witnesses just as he falsely represented that he served Plaintiff, this evidence would likely not be
28
2
Case No. 5:12-CV-01245-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND
CONTINUE ALL SCHEDULED DATES 60 DAYS
1
admissible pursuant to Rule 404 and 403. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1) (“Evidence of a crime,
2
wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a
3
particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”); Fed. R. Evid. 403 (“The
4
court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
5
of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue
6
delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence”).
7
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery deadlines and
8
continue all scheduled dates in the case by 60 days is DENIED.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
22,
Dated: February __, 2013
_________________________________
Lucy H. Koh H. KOH
LUCY
United United District Judge Judge
States States District
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No. 5:12-CV-01245-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND
CONTINUE ALL SCHEDULED DATES 60 DAYS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?