Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00177/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00177-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

JAMES BRADY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-177 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

The parties have filed a letter requesting assistance with a discovery dispute. Docket No. 102.

Plaintiffs have noticed three four-hour depositions of individuals who filed declarations in support of

defendant’s opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Defendant opposes the depositions

on the ground that pre-certification discovery is closed, and relies on a July 10, 2009 minute order which

set out a schedule for class certification proceedings. Plaintiffs assert that the July 24, 2009 deadline

in the minute order only related to written discovery, that defendant will not be prejudiced by allowing

the depositions to go forward, and that without the depositions plaintiffs are at a significant disadvantage

with regard to litigating the class certification motion.

The Court finds that the minute order, when read in conjunction with the parties’ July 2, 2009

case management statement, is ambiguous as to whether the July 24, 2009 discovery deadline related

to all pre-certification discovery, or solely written discovery. The Court will permit plaintiffs to take

the noticed depositions. In the interest of fairness, if defendant wishes defendant may also take three

four-hour depositions of plaintiffs’ class certification declarants. By January 18, 2010, defendant shall

notify plaintiffs if defendant wishes to take these depositions, and if so the parties shall immediately

meet and confer regarding scheduling. In the event defendant takes depositions, defendant may file no

Case 3:08-cv-00177-SI Document 103 Filed 01/14/10 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

later than February 12, 2010, a surreply of no more than 5 pages regarding the depositions as they

relate to the certification motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00177-SI Document 103 Filed 01/14/10 Page 2 of 2