Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02644/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02644-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights 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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING

ORDER—C-04-02644 RMW

MAG

E-FILED on 7/20/05

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DARNELL FARMEARL,

Plaintiff,

v.

STOROPACK, INC,

Defendant.

No. C-04-02644 RMW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER

[Re Docket No. 28]

After attempting to meet-and-confer onthe matter, plaintiff Darnell Farmearl asks the court to modify

itsscheduling order in this case. Defendant Storopack, Inc.("Storopack") opposes plaintiff'smotion. Plaintiff

noticed this motion on July 1, 2005 for hearing on July 15, 2005. The parties stipulated to the shortened time

for the hearing and briefing.

Plaintifffiled this action in state court, alleging racial discrimination and sexual harassment. Defendant

removed to federal court on the grounds of diversity. On October 29, 2004, the parties appeared for a case

management conference. At that conference, the court set the following dates: July 1, 2005 for the fact

discoverycutoff; disclosure of experts byJune 30, 2005;July 29, 2005 forthe expert discoverycutoff; August

5, 2005 as the last day for hearing dispositive motions; September 29, 2005 for the pretrial conference; and

October 11, 2005 for trial. Plaintiff has not completed the required discovery and has disclosed no experts

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 42 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING

ORDER—C-04-02644 RMW

MAG 2

in this case. He now seeksto modify the schedule byextending the discovery deadlines and continuing (1) the

hearing date on defendant's motion for summary judgment and (2) the trial date. 

Plaintiff asserts that he did not commence discovery sooner because the parties agreed to engage in

only limited discovery after their Early Neutral Evaluation ("ENE") session. After the ENE session, which

occurred on or around March 30, 2005, the partiesreceived a letterfromthe mediator expressing his interest

incontinuing to help the partiesresolve the matter and setting forth what appears to be his understanding ofthe

next steps. April 1, 2005 LetterfromMartin Dodd, Mot. Ex. 4 ("This will confirmthat you will conduct some

further, focused discovery then may wish to resume mediation"). Plaintiff argues that this letter evidences the

parties' agreement to limit discovery until the next mediation session.

Plaintiff further contends that defendant has impeded his ability to take depositions by delaying the

deposition of a key defense witness, Ms. Burke. Plaintiff claims this has hampered his ability to conduct

discovery because the parties agreed to depose Burke, then plaintiff. Although Ms. Burke was deposed on

March 8, 2005, plaintiff contends that the deposition was cut short by defendant's counsel and defendant

prevented plaintiff from taking the remainder of Burke's deposition until around the fact discovery close date

of June 30, 2005, by severely restricting the dates on which she was available.

On June 20, 2005 the mediator sent an email to counsel for both parties memorializing his

understanding that, while plaintiff was interested in further mediation, defendant had noticed a motion for

summary judgment for August 5, 2005 one or more of plaintiff's claims and preferred to await the resolution

of thatmotionbefore engaging inmediation. June 20, 2005 email from Martin Dodd, Mot. Ex. 8. That same

day, presumably after receiving the mediator's email, plaintiff propounded written discovery and sought to

depose three more witnesses, Troy Biscardi, Lester Whisnant, and Truc Tran.

 Defendant vigorously disputes that it ever agreed to "limited focused discovery" and argues that

plaintiffis solely to blame for his failure to timely conduct discovery. Defendant points out that it has diligently

made discovery requests and moved forward with its case while plaintiff noticed and withdrew subpoenas to

deposeStoropackemployees. It contends that plaintiff cannot demonstrate the requisite good cause warranting

modification of the court's schedule for this case. 

It appearsthat the parties mayhave discussed the possibility ofa second mediation, however, thatfact

alone does not lend sufficient support to plaintiff's position that he limited discovery in anticipation of that

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 42 Filed 07/20/05 Page 2 of 5
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 Plaintiff contends, without support, that defendant demanded that plaintiff withdraw these

subpoenas until after Burke's deposition, who was deposed on March 8, 2004.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING

ORDER—C-04-02644 RMW

MAG 3

possible mediationsession. Defendant has produced letters indicating that, as of March 1, 2005, plaintiff had

withdrawn the depositionsubpoenasforJesse Valderama and Lester Whisnant and defendant understood that

those depositions would be rescheduled for some time after plaintiff's deposition.1 Plaintiff was deposed on

March 28. The mediation occurred on March 31. Plaintiff apparently did not request the deposition of

additional Storopack personnel until around June 20.

Plaintiff's contention that he understood that the parties would only engage in limited discovery is

unconvincing in light of the fact that defendant continued deposing plaintiff'switnesses following the March 31

ENEsession, taking three depositions in mid-June. Additionally, even assuming that the parties had agreed to

limited discovery, plaintiff provides no explanation for failing to designate any experts priorto the court's June

30, 2005 deadline for making such designations.

Plaintiff also explains that, because defendant delayed completionofBurke's deposition, he could not

depose other witnesses due to the parties' agreement to complete Burke's deposition first. This argument is

likewise unconvincing. Burke's was deposed onMarch8; plaintiffwas deposed onMarch28, 2005. Plaintiff

has produced no evidence that he was prevented by defendants from deposing other witnesses until after he

completed Burke's deposition. Nor has he demonstrated that he raised any such concerns that further

depositions were dependent upon the completion of Burke's deposition to defendant. 

Because plaintiff hasfailed to showgood causefor altering the schedule this courtset inOctober 2004,

the court denies the motion tomodify the scheduling order. The court concludes, however, that plaintiff should

be permitted to seek responses to written discovery propounded before the close of fact discovery. Except

asset forthbelow, the court declines to extend the previously-established deadlines and dates. Defendant is,

however, ordered to respond within 10 days of this order to plaintiff's discovery requests propounded prior

to June 30, 2005. 

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 42 Filed 07/20/05 Page 3 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING

ORDER—C-04-02644 RMW

MAG 4

Inlight of the discovery ordered, the court will continue defendant's motion for summary judgment to

September 2, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion shall be due no later than August

12, 2005. Defendant's reply shall be due by August 19, 2005. All other dates remain unchanged.

 

DATED: 7/20/05 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 42 Filed 07/20/05 Page 4 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING

ORDER—C-04-02644 RMW

MAG 5

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff(s):

Richard D. Schramm rschramm@workplaceattys.com

Counsel for Defendant(s):

Thomas P. Brown tbrown@ebglaw.com 

Andrew J. Sommer Asommer@ebglaw.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for

e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 7/20/05 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 42 Filed 07/20/05 Page 5 of 5