Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02319/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02319-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jenae Finton, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Cleveland Indians Baseball Company LLC, 

et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-02319-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ Joint Motion re Discovery Dispute (Doc. 48) 

(the “Motion”). The Motion concerns the Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice (Doc. 

46) and Defendant Cleveland Indians Baseball Company, LLC’s (the “Club”) deposition 

notice for the Plaintiff Jenae Finton (Doc. 47). 

In the Motion, Plaintiff’s Counsel explains the efforts that she made to work with 

the Club’s Counsel to schedule the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition prior to the extended fact 

discovery cutoff date of May 29, 2020. These efforts include describing attempts to 

coordinate deposition scheduling with the Club’s Counsel. The reasons proffered by the 

Club are that they “did not anticipate all of the consequences of the various measures that 

the Club had to take to deal with the Coronavirus pandemic . . . [,]” and that it is not 

conducting business at this time.

The Court construes the Plaintiff’s position as asking that the depositions proceed, 

as noticed. The depositions shall proceed, as noticed and with prepared witnesses. There 

are several reasons justifying this course of action. First, the discovery schedule was 

Case 2:19-cv-02319-MTL Document 49 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

already extended at the parties’ request. (Doc. 42.) Second, it appears from the Motion that 

Defendant’s Counsel simply ignored Plaintiff’s Counsel’s efforts to coordinate the Rule 

30(b)(6) deposition. The Club’s position statement does not even attempt to explain its lack 

of communication with opposing counsel. Third, the Plaintiff may suffer economic 

hardship if the schedule is extended. This includes potential lost wages and forfeited funds 

advanced for the deposition. Fourth, the Club’s generalized use of the Coronavirus 

pandemic as an excuse to delay discovery for the past several weeks, without providing 

specific details applicable in this situation, fails to show good cause. The Club does not 

explain why it could not follow the extended fact discovery deadline with the 

accommodations offered by Plaintiff. Finally, the Club’s apparent justification that it was 

not open for operations also fails to show good cause. The Court regrets that it must remind 

the Club that it is a party to litigation in the United States Courts. It is subject to an active 

scheduling order. As such, it has an obligation to adhere to that order unless otherwise 

notified by the Court. It must make employees available for discovery purposes. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Plaintiff’s request. (Part of Doc. 48.) The Rule 

30(b)(6) deposition of the Club (Doc. 46) is ordered to proceed, as noticed. The deposition 

of Jenae Finton (Doc. 47) is ordered to proceed, as noticed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Club’s request to amend the scheduling 

order for a second time. (Part of Doc. 48.) The current scheduling order remains in effect.

Dated this 27th day of May, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-02319-MTL Document 49 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 2