Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03011/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03011-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

DOLORES JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:15-cv-03011-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING 10/5/16 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 65

On October 5, 2016, the parties filed a joint letter to determine whether they may rely on 

documents produced after the June 17, 2016 non-expert discovery cutoff at summary judgment 

and, if necessary, at trial. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 65 at 1.) Both parties produced documents after 

the cutoff date, but Plaintiff contends that she is prejudiced by Defendant’s supplemental 

production. (Joint Letter at 1, 3-4.)

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that she is severely prejudiced, because she would have 

explored the documents at the witness depositions, and would have deposed newly discovered 

witnesses, including three interview panelists. (Joint letter at 3-4.) Defendant argues that 

documents were a supplemental disclosure, as required by Rule 26, and are harmless, because the 

supplementation was not a surprise. (Joint Letter at 2.)

The fact discovery cutoff precludes propounding discovery or noticing depositions after 

the deadline. It does not preclude supplementing discovery responses. See Learning Tech. 

Partners v. Univ. of the Incarnate Word, 2016 WL 344881, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016); see 

also Evenflow Plumbing Co. v. Pac. Bell Directory, 2005 WL 954469, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 

2005). Indeed, the parties have an ongoing obligation to supplement under Rule 26. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(e)(1). To find otherwise, would extinguish a party’s obligation to produce discoverable 

Case 4:15-cv-03011-KAW Document 68 Filed 10/14/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

information or responsive documents identified after the cutoff date and contravene the very 

purpose of Rule 26(e)’s affirmative requirement to supplement.

Accordingly, the parties may rely on documents produced after the non-expert cutoff at 

summary judgment.1 If Plaintiff believes that she needs the testimony of the newly disclosed 

witnesses to either oppose the City’s motion for summary judgment or for the purposes of trial, 

she is GRANTED leave to take those depositions. 

Furthermore, the Court would also entertain extending the briefing schedule for the motion 

for summary judgment, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, to permit those depositions to go 

forward prior to Plaintiff’s opposition, as well as possibly continuing the February 21, 2017 trial 

date, in order to render any supplemental production harmless.

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff’s operative complaint contains new claims and/or 

allegations, Defendant is entitled to re-open her deposition only as to those new claims and 

allegations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1 Whether or not documents may be relied on at trial should be the subject of motions in limine.

Case 4:15-cv-03011-KAW Document 68 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 2