Free Uncategorized - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
Firm State Bar No. 00443100 Renaissance One Two North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391
TELEPHONE 602.229.5200

Lonnie J. Williams, Jr. (#005966) Dawn C. Valdivia (#020715) [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Marcela Johnson IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Marcela Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Charles Schwab Corporation, Defendant. NO. CV 04-0790 PHX-JWS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S EXPEDITED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN DISCOVERY

Defendant's statements in their Motion do not accurately reflect plaintiff's position. The discovery at issue was served upon defendant approximately 30 days ago. The responses are due on October 10, 2005. At the time of the conversation regarding the extension, plaintiff had scheduled a deposition, without objection, for October 11, 2005. It was plaintiff's desire to have those documents for use at the deposition. Plaintiff heard nothing from defendant regarding any difficulty with the production or any problem with the deposition that was scheduled for October 11, 2005, until October 5, 2005. Initially, when Ms. Valdivia spoke with Ms. Ganz, it was plaintiff's understanding that the primary issue that called for an extension of time to respond was the difficulty in gathering and producing said documents. It was that reason that led plaintiff to agree to accommodate defendant with an extension if they would proceed to state their position with respect to what documents plaintiff could actually expect to receive. Plaintiff's position was based, in part, on defendant previously filing a Motion to Extend Discovery based on plaintiff's alleged delay in complying with discovery requests. Although

Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC

Document 43

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

plaintiff does not believe there is any merit to that contention, it is clear that this case needs to be moved forward toward trial.1 Moreover, based on the court records, defendant's expedited motion was filed at 4:41 p.m. on Thursday, October 6, 2005. Prior to the filing of the Motion, the

undersigned had a conversation with defendant's counsel, Christopher Mason. During that conversation, the parties agreed to vacate the deposition set for October 11, 2005, on the condition that defendant would, on or before October 17, 2005, provide plaintiff's counsel with dates for the 30(b)(6) deposition. information regarding the Request for Production. The only thing that plaintiff desires, and defendant refused to provide, is some indication of what documents would be produced. Defendant has had 30 days to Plaintiff seeks the same type of

determine whether the documents, in its opinion, are discoverable. Under defendant's proposal, plaintiff will learn by October 17 whether they will produce anyone for a 30(b)(6) deposition and then learn on October 24 what documents will be produced. It is respectfully submitted that given the broad objections that defendant has made in Defendant's Objection to 30(b)(6) Deposition, it is likely that it will be Thanksgiving before plaintiff is able to go forward with what is a relatively simply 30(b)(6) deposition. For example, in their Objection to the 30(b)(6) deposition, they argue plaintiff's request to ask a representative of Charles Schwab questions regarding the value of all benefits that plaintiff was entitled to at the time of her termination is overly broad and ambiguous. It is respectfully submitted that the question is clear and plaintiff seeks defendant's position with respect to the benefits plaintiff was receiving at the time of her termination. However, defendant has indicated they do not intend to produce any person to provide evidence concerning the same, and plaintiff can only assume they will likewise object to providing any documents regarding that issue.

1

28

In fact, plaintiff recently offered to limit the number of depositions and documents requested and ask the Court for an expedited trial setting, based on the parties' agreement to minimize costs in discovery.

Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC

Document 43

-2Filed 10/07/2005

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

It is respectfully submitted that both with respect to the 30(b)(6) deposition, and with respect to the Request for Production, that defendant waited until 2-3 business days before they were due to begin discussing any arrangements with respect to an extension. At that time, the extension was wide open and defendant has flatly refused to provide any information which will aid the parties in moving this case forward. As stated in the letter from Ms. Valdivia, plaintiff does not have a problem with the requested extension, but believes that defendant can provide the information requested in order to expedite this matter. DATED this 7th day of October, 2005. QUARLES & BRADY STREICH LANG LLP

By s/Lonnie J. Williams, Jr. #005966 Lonnie J. Williams, Jr. Dawn C. Valdivia Attorneys for Plaintiff Marcela Johnson I hereby certify that on October 7, 2005, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Joseph T. Clees Christopher Mason Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 2415 E. Camelback Road Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016 A copy of this document was provided to the Honorable John W. Sedwick
QBPHX\115637.00002\1962771.1

Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC

Document 43

-3Filed 10/07/2005

Page 3 of 3