Abdul Nevarez v. Forty Niners Football Company, LLC

Filing 313

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES DECEMBER 21, 2018 DISCOVERY DISPUTES 297 ; 298 by Judge Susan van Keulen. (svklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ABDUL NEVAREZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 16-cv-07013-LHK (SVK)

v.
FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL COMPANY,
LLC, et al.,

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’
DECEMBER 21, 2018 DISCOVERY
DISPUTES
Re: Dkt. Nos. 297, 298, 312

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On December 21, 2018 the Parties filed two joint discovery letters regarding the

14

sufficiency of Defendants’ production of ticketing information from the Archtics ticketing

15

database. ECF 297; ECF 298. In the first letter, Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its October

16

25, 2018 order denying their request to compel Defendants to produce the Archtics database

17

(ECF 268). ECF 297. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory

18

No. 5 is “incomplete, confusing, and inconclusive.” ECF 297 at 1. As a result, Plaintiffs request

19

that the Court order Defendants to produce the Archtics database, so that Plaintiffs may determine

20

the answer to Interrogatory No. 5, rather than relying on the data that Defendants produced. Id. In

21

the second letter, Plaintiffs again request an order compelling Defendants to produce the Archtics

22

database: this time in response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 4. ECF 298 at 1. Plaintiffs

23

additionally seek to compel Defendants to produce an updated and accurate Attendance

24

Spreadsheet in the same format as the Attendance Spreadsheet produced on October 4, 2018. Id.

25

On January 4, 2019, the Court issued an interim order requesting additional information from the

26

Parties. ECF 311. The Parties filed a joint response to that request on January 7, 2019. ECF 312.

27
28

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds these matters suitable for disposition
without oral argument. As to ECF 297 and ECF 298, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not been

1

diligent in raising the issues therein. The motions to compel are therefore untimely and are

2

DENIED.
Fact discovery closed on October 4, 2018, and expert discovery closed on December 6,

3

2018. ECF 123 at 2. On October 19, 2018, Plaintiffs first moved to compel additional discovery

5

responses and production of the Archtics database. ECF 256. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion

6

as to the database but ordered Defendants to supplement Interrogatory Responses Nos. 4 and 5 and

7

to produce additional ticketing information, all by October 31, 2018. ECF 268. Deficiencies in

8

the October 31 responses and production were readily apparent to Plaintiffs, as evidenced by the

9

Parties’ subsequent meet and confer efforts and agreement to address the production at the Rule

10

30(b)(6) deposition of Jamie Brandt. ECF 297 at 2; ECF 312 at 1-2. That deposition took place

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

on November 6, 2018. ECF 312 at 1. Plaintiffs were still dissatisfied with the information

12

provided in the deposition, yet they failed to raise any further issues with the Court until six weeks

13

later with the filing of ECF 297 and ECF 298. Plaintiffs should have sought relief immediately

14

following the November 6 deposition. Although already past the date for motions to compel, the

15

Court could have then considered the substance of the Defendants’ responses and production and

16

the case calendar and acted accordingly. Plaintiffs’ explanation for the delay (ECF 312 at 1-2) is

17

unavailing. Further, the Court notes that expert discovery is now closed, and the Parties are well

18

into the briefing schedule for summary judgment. As such, it is unclear what use, if any, Plaintiffs

19

could make of any additional fact-finding efforts at this stage of the proceedings.1 Accordingly,

20

Plaintiffs’ requests are not in proportion to the needs of the case and, as noted above, untimely.

21

////

22

////

23

////

24

////

25

////

26
27
28

1

The Court also notes that the presiding District Judge, the Honorable Lucy H. Koh, has rejected
several requests to extend discovery deadlines in this matter. ECF 230; ECF 248; ECF 275.
2

1

For all of foregoing the reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions to compel.

2

SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: January 7, 2019

4
5
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3