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 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's M ot ion for Leave and to Compel Deposition of Cheri M elle and for Sanctions. [Dkt. 154]. The M otion is fully briefed. Plaint iff seeks an extension of the M arch 31, 2006 discovery deadline to take the dep os ition of Cheri M elle, who supervised Plaintiff when she worked for Defendant and allegedly has information related to Plaintiff's emp loyment discrimination, sexual vs. Charles Schwab Corporation, Defendant. M arcela Johnson, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 04-790-PHX-EHC ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

harassment, and retaliation claims. Plaintiff filed the M otion for Leave on M ay 23, 2006, almost two months after the M arch 31, 2006 discovery deadline. Extending the discovery deadline to allow Plaintiff to take M elle's deposition would require reopening the briefing on the pending M otions for Summary Judgment. [Dkts. 132 & 134]. Those M otions were filed on M arch 31, 2006, the deadline for filing dispositive motions. Plaintiff filed her Responses [dkt s . 152 & 153] on M ay 12, 2006, before she filed the M otion for Leave on M ay 23, 2006. Defendants subsequently filed Replies on June 6, 2006. If M elle's deposition were taken, further briefing on the M otions for Summary Judgment would be required to account for M elle's testimony.

Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC

Document 165

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 1 of 2

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

Reopening the briefing on the M otions for Summary Judgment and extending the discovery deadline is not warranted in t his case because Plaintiff has not demonstrated reasonable diligence in attempting to timely schedule M elle's dep osition. Cf. Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 783-84 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming denial of "request for a continuance to obtain addit ional discovery" because it was filed after the discovery deadline and the filing of a motion for summary judgment). Since at least October 2004, Plaintiff has known that M elle is a possible witness in this cas e. 1 Although M elle is not a D efendant in this case and no longer works for Defendant, Plaintiff did not contact M elle to arrange a t ime for her deposition. Nor did Plaintiff issue M elle a Notice of Deposition or Subpoena. Instead, Plaintiff relied on Defendant to discuss deposition dates with M elle. [Dkt. 154, exs. A-E]. Even the attempt to schedule M elle's deposition through Defendant was belated; Plaintiff admits that "she first asked [Defendant] for dates to take M elle's deposition on December 1, 2005." [Dkt. 161, p. 1]. Plaintiff refused the February 14, 2006 deposition date Defendant arranged with M elle. Given Plaintiff's lack of diligence in scheduling M elle's deposition, there is no good cause to extend the discovery deadline and reopen the briefing on the M otions for Summary Judgment to accommodate taking M elle's deposition. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's M otion for Leave and to Compel Deposition of Cheri M elle and for Sanctions [dkt. 154] is DENIED. DATED this 26th day of June, 2006.

M elle testified before the National Labor Relations Board, which tried Plaintiff's charge that Defendant committ ed an unfair labor practice in September and October of 2004. [Dkt. 135, ex. M , p. 3]. Plaintiff may have known that M elle was a possible witness as early as 2003; on December 18, 2003 M elle executed an affidavit relat ing t o Plaintiff's claims against Defendant. [Dkt. ex. B]. -2Filed 06/27/2006

1

Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC

Document 165

Page 2 of 2