Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01185/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01185-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 751
Nature of Suit: Labor - Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TINA CANUPP, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHILDREN’S RECEIVING HOME OF 

SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1185-WBS-EFB 

ORDER 

 Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to compel non-party Hendrickson & Hunt 

Pain Management (“Hendrickson & Hunt”) to produce Jay Hendrickson for deposition, which is 

noticed for hearing on March 23, 2016.1 ECF No. 35. As addressed below, defendant has since 

withdrawn the motion but requested an extension of time to complete the deposition. 2 That 

request is granted. 

 This case was before the court on February 17, 2016, for hearing on defendant’s motion to 

exceed the ten-deposition limit imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(i) and to 

modify the court’s scheduling order. ECF No. 17. That motion was granted in part and the 

 1

 This case is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 

302(c)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

2

 Accordingly, the court vacates the March 23, 2016 hearing. 

Case 2:14-cv-01185-WBS-EFB Document 41 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

discovery deadline was extended to March 9, 2016, for the limited purpose of completing the 

depositions of Jay Hendrickson and another witness. Id. 

 On March 7, 2016, defendant filed the instant motion to compel Hendrickson & Hunt to 

produce Jay Hendrickson for deposition.3 The motion explains that defendant attempted to 

contract Hendrickson’s office of Hendrickson & Hunt to coordinate the scheduling of his 

deposition. ECF No. 35 at 4. Defense counsel called and left messages with the office on four 

occasions. ECF No. 35 at 4; Declaration of Anthony Oceguera ¶ 7. After receiving no response, 

defendant served Hendrickson & Hunt with a deposition subpoena, through its agent for service 

of process, Daniel Leman, setting the deposition for March 3, 3016 at Hendrickson & Hunt’s 

office in Folsom, California. Id. ¶8, Ex. A. Defense counsel appeared for the deposition on the 

noticed date, but was informed that Mr. Hendrickson was not available. Id. ¶ 10. 

 Defendant then filed the instant motion seeking to compel compliance with the deposition 

subpoena. ECF No. 35. Defense counsel subsequently filed a supplemental declaration, 

explaining that after he filed the motion Lanette Silva, the employee of Hendrickson & Hunt 

responsible for coordinating depositions, contacted counsel and indicated that Hendrickson was 

not available for the noticed deposition because he was out of the country. Supplemental 

Declaration of Oceguera ¶¶ 2-3. Ms. Silvia also indicated that she had not contacted defense 

counsel earlier because she was also out of the office the prior week. Id. ¶ 3. She also 

represented that Hendrickson was willing to make himself available for deposition. Id. ¶ 4. 

 After further discussions, defense counsel and Ms. Silva agreed to schedule Hendrickson’s 

deposition for April 21, 2016. Id. ¶ 6. Ms. Silva also submitted a declaration, confirming that 

Hendrickson will be available for his deposition on that date. ECF No. 37. Defendant argues that 

in light of these representations, there is good cause to permit Hendrickson’s deposition to 

proceed on April 21, 2016. ECF No. 37 ¶ 8. Further, counsel asserts that, given Ms. Silva’s 

cooperation, the motion to compel is withdrawn. Instead, counsel “requests simply that the Court 

 3

 Defendant had difficulty personally serving Mr. Hendrickson with a deposition 

subpoena. Accordingly, defendant served his business, Hendrickson & Hunt, with a subpoena to 

produce Mr. Hendrickson for deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). 

Case 2:14-cv-01185-WBS-EFB Document 41 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 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 

3

issue an order permitting [his] office to move forward with the agreed-upon deposition . . . and 

modifying the scheduling order accordingly.” Id. ¶ 9. 

 Plaintiff opposes defendant’s request to modify the scheduling order, arguing that the 

failure to complete the deposition by March 9, 2016 was due to defendant’s failure to properly 

serve Hendrickson & Hunt with the deposition subpoena. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff adds that 

defendant served Daniel Leman, who is not the agent for service of process. Id. at 2. According 

to the Secretary of State’s website, Brian Hunt is Hendrickson & Hunt’s agent for service of 

process. ECF No. 38-1. Defendant contends, however, that after defendant served Hendrickson 

& Hunt with the deposition subpoena, Hendrickson & Hunt changed its agent for service of 

process from Daniel Leman to Mr. Hunt. ECF No. 36 ¶ 5. 

 Regardless of the issues with service, good cause exists to grant the requested extension to 

complete the deposition of Hendrickson. Defendant experienced difficulty completing the 

deposition because Hendrickson was out of the country. Furthermore, Ms. Silva has represented 

that Hendrickson is willing be deposed on the on April 21, 2016, and plaintiff has failed to show 

that she will be prejudiced by completing the deposition on that date. Accordingly, the court 

finds good cause to modify the scheduling order to permit the deposition to be completed. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 

consent”); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding 

that a motion to modify the schedule must be supported by a showing of good cause; i.e., that the 

schedule could not have been met despite the moving party’s diligence). 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. Defendant’s motion to compel Hendrickson & Hunt to produce Jay Hendrickson for 

deposition (ECF No. 35) is deemed withdrawn and the March 23, 2016 hearing thereon is 

vacated. 

 2. The deadline to complete discovery is extended to April 21, 2016, for the limited 

purpose of completing the deposition of Jay Hendrickson. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-01185-WBS-EFB Document 41 Filed 03/22/16 Page 3 of 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 

4

 3. Jay Hendrickson’s deposition shall commence at 8:00 a.m. on April 21, 2016 at 

Hendrickson & Hunt’s Folsom office. Defendant is reminded that the deposition is limited to two 

hours. See ECF No. 23. 

DATED: March 22, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-01185-WBS-EFB Document 41 Filed 03/22/16 Page 4 of 4