Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00475/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00475-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

RICHARD JOHN,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED AIR LINES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-00475-VC (JSC)

DISCOVERY ORDER

DARRYL WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED AIR LINES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-00472-VC (JSC)

LEON MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED AIR LINES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-00457-VC (JSC)

Upon review of the record in these related cases, and having held a discovery conference 

with the parties on November 13, 2017, the Court orders discovery to be completed as set forth 

below.

Case 3:15-cv-00475-VC Document 295 Filed 11/14/17 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

1. Depositions of Plaintiffs

United shall take the depositions of Mr. Miller, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. John on the dates 

previously noticed. Defendants shall have up to 14 hours per plaintiff. An addition to the seven 

hour default limit in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is reasonable given that each plaintiff 

has his own independent claims and needs to be deposed about liability and damages. While 

United previously deposed Mr. John and Mr. Miller, the district court ruled that this deposition 

time would not count against United’s time. (John, 15-00475-VC, Dkt. No. 92 at 46.) Indeed, 

Mr. John and Mr. Miller, through counsel, agreed that they were to be re-deposed. (Id. at 42.) 

2. Written Discovery

The parties shall complete responses to written discovery served before July 23, 2017 (that 

is, served at least 30 days before the close of the extended fact discovery deadline). Accordingly, 

United shall complete the production they contend was paused in light of prior counsel’s 

indication that he was going to move to withdraw. If any of that uncompleted production relates 

to the jobs applied for by these plaintiffs, United shall produce the relevant discovery before each 

plaintiff’s deposition. To the extent Mr. Miller, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. John were served with 

deposition notices prior to July 23, 2017 that included requests for production of documents, they 

shall comply with those Notices.

Any discovery disputes regarding the outstanding written discovery shall be brought to the 

Court’s attention as follows. First, the parties must meet and confer in person or by telephone on 

or before November 22, 2017. Second, if the meet and confer is not wholly successful, the party 

seeking to compel a further production shall serve the opposing party with his/its portion of the 

joint letter brief required by the Court’s Standing Order on or before noon on November 29, 2017. 

The opposing party shall serve its responsive portion of the letter brief on or before the close of 

business on December 1, 2017. The moving party shall file the letter brief (including any added 

reply portion) with the Court by close of business December 4, 2017.

3. Depositions of United

Plaintiffs may use in this action (whether in opposition to summary judgment, at trial or 

otherwise) any depositions that were taken by the bellwether plaintiffs; however, they may not 

Case 3:15-cv-00475-VC Document 295 Filed 11/14/17 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

notice any further depositions. Fact discovery reopened in these cases on April 12, 2016. (John, 

115-00475 VC, Dkt. No. 120.) In March 2017, the district court ordered a fact discovery deadline 

of June 27, 2017. (Dkt. No. 247 at 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel moved for a stay of the action due to 

lead counsel’s health on May 31, 2017. (Id. Dkt. No. 253.) On June 8, 2017, the district court 

stayed the case until July 2, 2017, and extended the fact discovery cut-off to August 28, 2017. (Id. 

Dkt. No. 257.) More than two months later, on August 21, 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel moved to 

withdraw. (Dkt. No. 260.) Prior to that date—which was one week before the expiration of the 

extended fact discovery deadline—Plaintiffs did not notice any United depositions and did not 

otherwise do anything to schedule any depositions, including even identifying any potential 

United witnesses to United. The district court held a telephonic hearing the following day. Once 

again Plaintiffs’ counsel did not suggest that Plaintiffs still had depositions to notice and take even 

though counsel specifically discussed the scheduling of Plaintiffs’ depositions. (Id. Dkt. No. 264 

at 19.) 

New counsel made an appearance on October 10, 2017. The district court set the 

dispositive motion hearing deadline for March 1, 2017 with trial scheduled for May 21, 2018. (Id.

Dkt. No. 269.) The undersigned magistrate judge held a discovery conference with the parties on 

October 23, 2017. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and devise a discovery plan 

and submit the plan by November 9, 2017. (Id. Dkt. No. 277.) The parties filed separate 

submissions, but Plaintiffs have still not identified any additional United depositions. In any 

event, it is too late. The extended fact discovery deadline came and went. Plaintiffs are bound by 

the action or inaction of previous counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00475-VC Document 295 Filed 11/14/17 Page 3 of 3