Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al

Filing 60

ORDER ON 58 JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER PLAINTIFF'S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 6/13/2018. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LILIANA CANELA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 13-cv-03598-BLF (SVK)
ORDER ON JOINT STATEMENT
REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE
OVER PLAINTIFF'S THIRD
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES
Re: Dkt. No. 58

12
13

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Statement regarding a discovery dispute over

14

Plaintiff’s Third Supplemental Disclosures. ECF 58. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the

15

Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument.

16

The cutoff for fact discovery in this PAGA suitable seating case was May 3, 2018. One

17

day prior to the cutoff, Plaintiff served Second Supplemental Disclosures, identifying 15

18

additional witnesses. Defendant Costco states that from the description of the witnesses’

19

knowledge, it assumed they were current or former Costco employees. It appears that each party

20

in this case has disclosed hundreds of witnesses, so naturally the parties have elected not to depose

21

many witnesses disclosed by the other side.

22

On May 14, 2018—11 days after the fact discovery cutoff—Plaintiff served Third

23

Supplemental Disclosures, enclosing reports tracking work performed at entrance doors at 30

24

Costco warehouse. Costco initially assumed that these reports were expert-related and that it

25

would have an opportunity to depose Plaintiff’s experts about the reports. Costco later learned

26

that these reports were created by six fact witnesses that were among the witnesses disclosed in

27

Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Disclosures on May 2, 2018. Costco has requested an

28

opportunity to take one-hour telephonic depositions of each of these six witnesses.

1

Plaintiff opposes Costco’s request to depose the six fact witnesses on several grounds.

2

First, Plaintiff argues that it has not deposed all of the witnesses identified in Costco’s disclosures,

3

and thus Costco should not be given an opportunity to depose the six witnesses at issue. This

4

argument does not help Plaintiff. Costco is not seeking to depose all witnesses disclosed by

5

Plaintiff, only the six witnesses disclosed the day before the discovery cutoff who were involved

6

in the preparation of late-disclosed reports that Plaintiff presumably plans to use at trial. ECF 58

7

at 3:6-8.

8

Second, Plaintiff argues that “there is really no need for depositions” because Costco has
sufficient information to cross-examine the witnesses at trial. It is not for Plaintiff to make the

10

strategic decision as to whether Costco should cross-examine the witnesses at trial without the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

benefit of deposition testimony.

12

Third, Plaintiff complains that these six depositions cannot be scheduled before the July 5,

13

2018 deadline for the parties to file a joint pretrial statement because Plaintiff’s counsel is

14

scheduled to start a two-week trial on June 18. However, the scheduling problems are entirely of

15

Plaintiff’s own making. Plaintiff acknowledges it was made aware of the need for the reports on

16

March 1, 2018, but the reports were not completed until after the fact discovery cutoff. ECF 58 at

17

3, n.1. Defendant has reasonably requested very limited depositions—six one-hour telephonic

18

depositions—which Plaintiff will find time to accommodate if it intends to use the reports at trial.

19

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Costco’s request and ORDERS that if Plaintiff intends to

20

use the door activity reports at trial, it must make each of the six witnesses who prepared the

21

reports available for a one-hour telephonic deposition between now and June 30, 2018.

22
23

SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 13, 2018

24
25
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
2