Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01474/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01474-12/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

TRINA HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOODFELLOW TOP GRADE,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-01474-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

RELATE; DENYING MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE; GRANTING IN PART 

AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 

REOPEN DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 74, 77, 78

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to (1) relate her case to Monroe v. 

Goodfellow Top Grade, Case No. 3:18-cv-07673-LB, Dkt. No. 74; (2) consolidate her case with 

Monroe, Dkt. No. 78; and (3) reopen discovery, Dkt. No. 77.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Hill’s Allegations

Plaintiff Trina Hill initially brought this case pro se on March 6, 2018, alleging that her 

former employer, Goodfellow Top Grade, discriminated against and harassed her based on her 

race, color, and sex, and retaliated against her for exercising her rights, thus violating Title VII, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. See Complaint, Dkt. No. 1. Hill alleged that she began working for 

Goodfellow on May 19, 2017, id. ¶ 10, and experienced discrimination and harassment from coworkers and supervisors from shortly after her hiring until she was constructively discharged due 

to stress on September 20, 2017, id. ¶¶ 14–23.

B. Hill’s Suit

On October 16, 2018, the Court appointed pro bono counsel from Arnold & Porter Kaye 

Scholer LLP for the limited scope of representing Hill in a settlement conference and conducting 

the discovery necessary to prepare for a settlement conference. See Dkt. Nos. 44, 45. The parties 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 86 Filed 06/28/19 Page 1 of 4
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

attended a settlement conference on February 21, 2019, but were unable to reach a settlement 

agreement. See Dkt. No. 61. Fact discovery closed on March 11. See Dkt. No. 59.

On May 5, 2019, the Court terminated prior pro bono counsel and appointed new pro bono 

counsel from Fenwick & West LLP to represent Hill “for all purposes for the duration of [the] 

case.” See Dkt. No. 67. On June 4, 2019, the parties appeared before the Court for an initial case 

management conference, at which the Court set the briefing schedule for these motions. See Dkt. 

No. 75.

C. Monroe’s Case

Diana Monroe, proceeding pro se, brought an action against Goodfellow Top Grade on 

December 21, 2018, alleging that it subjected her to a hostile work environment and discriminated 

against her based on her sex and race and retaliated against her when she lodged a complaint. See 

Monroe v. Goodfellow Top Grade, Case No. 3:18-cv-07673-LB (“Monroe”), Dkt. No. 1. Monroe 

alleged that she was hired by Goodfellow on March 2, 2017, and terminated on July 19, 2017. See 

id. On March 25, 2019, Monroe was appointed pro bono counsel from Fenwick & West LLP. See 

Monroe, Dkt. No. 23.

II. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE CASES

Hill moved on June 5 to relate her case with that of Monroe’s, contending that they will 

“require determination of substantially the same questions of fact and law.” See Dkt. No. 74 at 2. 

Defendants opposed. See Dkt. No. 76.

Under the Civil Local Rules, cases are related to one another if:

(1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, 

transaction or event; and

(2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome 

duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are 

conducted before different Judges.

Though both Hill and Monroe have named Goodfellow as the Defendant, and some of their 

allegations concern overlapping events and witnesses, their actions concern largely different 

events. Their employment at Goodfellow overlapped for approximately two months, but they 

ended their employment for different reasons months apart from each other. Thus, the Court finds 

that the actions do not concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction, or event and 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 86 Filed 06/28/19 Page 2 of 4
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

that there would not likely be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor or conflicting results if 

these cases continue as separate actions. Accordingly, the administrative motion to relate is 

DENIED.

1

III. MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Hill moved to reopen discovery to take additional third-party discovery from the 

Mortenson Clark Joint Venture, Clark Construction Group, LLC, and her union. See Dkt. No. 77 

at 3, 6–7. According to Hill, she was unable to take discovery from Mortenson Clark or Clark 

Construction Group during the fact discovery period because her prior pro bono counsel advised 

her it had a conflict and, despite her efforts, she was unable to obtain help to issue the subpoenas 

herself. Id. at 4–5.

Deadlines established in a case management order may “be modified only for good 

cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause” exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be 

met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily 

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id.; see also Coleman v. Quaker 

Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Where the moving party has not been diligent, the 

inquiry ends, and the motion should be denied. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 

1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

The Court finds that Hill has established good cause to reopen discovery for the purpose of 

issuing subpoenas to the Mortenson Clark Joint Venture and Clark Construction Group and its 

employees. In light of Hill’s representation that counsel was conflicted and thus unable to fully 

represent her when conducting discovery for the settlement conference and that she was 

effectively required to act as a pro se litigant in obtaining discovery from these entities, the Court 

finds that she has been diligent. This discovery is relevant to Hill’s claims that she was 

discriminated against and harassed by Goodfellow employees. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

 

1

In addition, the Court DENIES Hill’s motion to consolidate the two cases, Dkt. No. 78. 

Monroe’s case is not before the Court and, for the same reasons the Court discussed in denying the 

motion to relate, consolidation would not improve efficiency.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 86 Filed 06/28/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

the motion as it pertains to these entities and will reopen discovery for this limited purpose for 30 

days.

However, Hill has not provided any explanation for why she or her prior pro bono counsel 

were unable to issue subpoenas to her labor union and she does not assert that her counsel raised a 

conflict. Thus, because Hill has not established her diligence in seeking discovery against her 

union, the Court DENIES the motion to reopen discovery as to the union.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court:

1. DENIES the administrative motion to relate cases. Dkt. No. 74.

2. DENIES the motion to consolidate. Dkt. No. 78.

3. GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to reopen discovery. Dkt.

No. 77.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/28/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 86 Filed 06/28/19 Page 4 of 4