Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03685/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03685-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The sites at issue are as follows: the War Memorial Opera House, the War Memorial Veterans

Building, Davies Symphony Hall, the Glen Park branch library, the Excelsior branch library, and the

Chinatown branch library.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVANA KIROLA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-3685 SBA (EMC)

ORDER RE JOINT LETTER OF APRIL

7, 2010

(Docket No. 231)

Per Judge Armstrong’s order of February 25, 2010, fact discovery in this case closed on

March 31, 2010. See Docket No. 168 (order). Plaintiffs have now asked for leave to take two

30(b)(6) depositions (regarding six different sites1

) after the fact discovery cut-off. At least one of

the 30(b)(6) depositions had been scheduled to take place prior to the discovery cut-off but was

cancelled by Plaintiffs after a medical problem arose with their lead counsel, Mr. Wallace. Because

of the medical problem, Mr. Wallace was out of the office between March 24 and 30, 2010. See

generally Lake Decl. Having considered the joint letter and accompanying submissions, the Court

hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for relief.

As a preliminary matter, the Court rejects the City’s contention that Plaintiffs’ request for

relief is untimely. Although Judge Armstrong’s case management orders have indicated that

discovery motions should be filed and heard prior to the discovery cut-off date, Federal Rule of Civil

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 239 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that a schedule may be modified where there is good cause. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Under Ninth Circuit law, the good cause inquiry “focuses on the reasonable

diligence of the moving party.” Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Here, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs have been reasonably diligent in presenting the discovery

dispute for the Court’s consideration. Plaintiffs did not learn that there was a medical problem until

only a week before the March 31 fact discovery cut-off. Although Plaintiffs knew as of March 26,

2010, that the City objected to a rescheduling of the 30(b)(6) depositions after March 31, see O’Neil

Decl. ¶ 18 & Ex. N, the Court is not convinced that getting a joint letter to the Court within three

court days was possible – particularly because Plaintiffs needed to obtain a declaration from Mr.

Wallace’s doctor. 

The question for the Court, therefore, is whether Plaintiffs were justified in cancelling the

30(b)(6) depositions based on the medical condition of Mr. Wallace, their lead counsel. The Court

finds that Plaintiffs were justified. Given the importance of the 30(b)(6) depositions, the

participation of lead counsel was needed. Moreover, allowing the depositions will not pose an

undue burden or otherwise prejudice the City. The City would have had to spend time prepping the

witnesses and traveling in conjunction with the depositions regardless of when the depositions

would take place. Now that the trial has been continued to July 12, 2010 (from May 24, 2010), there

is more flexibility in terms of scheduling the depositions. 

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs the relief requested. The 30(b)(6) depositions shall

take place no later than April 20, 2010, unless the parties mutually agree to a later date. The parties

are expected to meet and confer to determine a date and time for the depositions to take place. Both

the witness’s availability as well as Mr. Wallace’s availability should be taken into consideration.

This order disposes of Docket No. 231.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 239 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 2