Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05421/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05421-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAON ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-05421-RS (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 8/11/17 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 117

On August 11, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter concerning Defendant’s request for an 

extension of time beyond the seven hour limit to depose named plaintiff Shaon Robinson under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 117 at 1.) Plaintiffs’ deadline to file 

their motion for class certification is August 31, 2017. Id. Defendant’s opposition is due on 

October 5, 2017. Id.

On July 14, 2017, Mr. Robinson sat for approximately six hours of his deposition before 

his counsel, Leonard Emma, stated that he had to leave. (Joint Letter at 1.) On July 17, 2017, 

Defendant reached out to Plaintiffs to request that Mr. Robinson sit for deposition for an 

additional day and a half. (Joint Letter at 1.) In the course of meeting and conferring, Plaintiffs 

offered to produce Mr. Robinson for an additional 10 hours, five hours per day for two additional 

days, “if Defendant agrees that will conclude his deposition,” thereby precluding Defendant from 

later seeking additional time from the court. (Joint Letter at 2.) “Defendants have stated that they 

will try to complete Plaintiff’s deposition in one-seven hour day, but will not waive their right to 

seek an extension of time for good cause following meet and confer efforts.” (Joint Letter at 1.) 

Plaintiffs then offered one additional day of deposition, so long as Defendant agreed not to seek 

additional time unless it believed that “that Plaintiff's obstructionist misconduct at the second day 

Case 3:15-cv-05421-RS Document 118 Filed 08/11/17 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of deposition prevented Defendant from completing Plaintiff's deposition within one more day of 

seven hours.” (Joint Letter at 2.)

Rule 30 requires that the court “allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) 

if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other 

circumstance impedes or delays the examination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Here, Mr. Robinson is 

the putative class representative of a class action involving eight causes of action for various wage 

and hour claims. (Joint Letter at 3.) Additionally, he has alleged seven individual causes of action 

alleging race and disability discrimination and harassment, failure to accommodate, and failure to 

engage in the interactive process. Id. Defendant provides that it was unable to complete the 

examination of the class action claims during the first deposition, and did not even begin to 

examine Plaintiff regarding his individual claims. Id.

The Court finds that it is unreasonable that Plaintiffs would seek to condition the further 

examination of a named plaintiff, particularly in light of the large number of class and individual 

claims, on agreeing not to seek relief for additional time. Accordingly, Defendant is permitted the 

additional 10 hours of time originally offered by Plaintiffs,1and may seek relief from the 

undersigned should additional time be required to explore all of Mr. Robinson’s claims. 

Additionally, given the looming class certification briefing schedule, Plaintiff shall sit for seven 

hours on the first day and three hours on the second day. 

Lastly, Mr. Robinson’s continued deposition is noticed for August 25, 2017. (Joint Letter 

at 1.) Defendant claims that “Plaintiff refuses to sit for his deposition on that date.” (Joint Letter 

at 1.) Plaintiffs did not address Mr. Robinson’s availability on the noticed date in their portion of 

the joint letter. The parties are reminded of their obligation to meet and confer regarding the 

scheduling of depositions, so the Court is confident that the parties can identify mutually agreeable 

dates, several weeks before Defendant’s opposition to the motion for class certification is due, 

///

///

 

1

The Court presumes that 10 hours offered included the remaining hour to which Defendant is 

entitled under Rule 30(d)(1).

Case 3:15-cv-05421-RS Document 118 Filed 08/11/17 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

without further court intervention. See generally Northern District Guidelines for Professional 

Conduct § 9.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05421-RS Document 118 Filed 08/11/17 Page 3 of 3