Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03514/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03514-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE TABLEWARE ANTITRUST

LITIGATION

 /

No C-04-3514 VRW

ORDER

In a letter dated November 30, 2006, plaintiffs request

relief from the March 31, 2006, discovery cutoff date for the

purpose of taking the deposition of Dawn Robertson, a former

employee of defendant. Doc #144. Defendant opposes plaintiffs’

request, arguing that plaintiffs have failed to set forth good

cause for modifying the court’s schedule under FRCP 16(b). Doc

#145. 

//

//

Case 3:04-cv-03514-VRW Document 146 Filed 12/13/06 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

Plaintiffs concede that defendant named Ms Robertson in

interrogatory responses seven months before the discovery cutoff

date, but insist they had “no reason to take her deposition in

light of the Suval stipulation.” Doc #144 at 2. Yet the Suval

stipulation pertained to the authenticity of the Suval email, not

the accuracy of its contents. Moreover, plaintiffs had reason to

depose Ms Robertson before the end of discovery because she is

specifically referenced in the Suval email. Accordingly, the court

DENIES plaintiffs’ request for relief from the discovery cutoff

date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03514-VRW Document 146 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 2