Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00346/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00346-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOMINIC HARDIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE

ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, a

nonprofit association,

INTERNATIONAL GIRLS

BASKETBALL ORGANIZATION, a

Washington nonprofit corporation,

ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL

UNIVERSITY, a nonprofit educational

institution, TOWN AND COUNTRY

HOTEL, LLC, a California limited

liability company,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 13cv346-W (DHB)

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

EXPEDITE DISCOVERY

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(d)

[ECF No. 19]

On March 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Expedite Discovery Pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d). (ECF No. 19.) Defendant National Collegiate Athletic

Association (NCAA) filed an opposition on March 28, 20131

 (ECF No. 30) and Plaintiff filed

a reply on April 1, 2013. (ECF No. 36.) Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and

supporting exhibits, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery, as

outlined below.

1

 Defendants Town and Country Hotel, LLC, International Girls Basketball Organization, and

Alliant International, filed Notices of Joinder, indicating they join in NCAA’s opposition to the motion

to expedite discovery. See ECF Nos. 32, 33. and 34.

13cv346-W (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00346-GPC-DHB Document 46 Filed 04/05/13 Page 1 of 5
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

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff brings this action under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §

2000a et seq. Plaintiff alleges Defendants implemented a coaching certification policy that

unlawfully discriminates against African Americans in places of public accommodation in

violation of Title II. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on February 13, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) On

March 7, 2013, Defendant NCAA filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9). 

Thereafter, Defendants Town and Country Hotel, LLC, Alliant International University, and

International Girls Basketball Organization each filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 10,

12, and 16.) The motions are currently set to be heard before the Honorable Thomas J.

Whelan on April 29, 2013.

On March 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 18.) 

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the current coaching certification policy,

which prevents all persons with felony convictions from coaching at NCAA events. He also

seeks to have his NCAA coaching certification reinstated. In 2001, Plaintiff was convicted

of a felony. Despite his conviction, Plaintiff states that in 2010 and 2011, he was certified

to coach at NCAA events under Defendants’ prior certification policy. However, under the

current policy, Plaintiff is barred from coaching at NCAA-certified tournaments, including

the Midsummer Nights’ Madness (MSNM) Basketball Western Tournament that will be held

in San Diego, California on July 28-31, 2013. Defendants have opposed the motion. (ECF

Nos. 37, 38, 39, 40, 43.) Currently, the motion hearing is set for April 29, 2013. Plaintiff

has filed a motion requesting that the hearing be continued. (ECF No. 29.) 

On March 14, 2013, Plaintiff also filed the instant Motion to Expedite Discovery. 

(ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff requests permission to propound discovery from Defendant NCAA

prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. Plaintiff states his proposed discovery requests are

relevant to the issues in the pending motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants oppose

the request. 

/ / /

/ / /

2 13cv346-W (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00346-GPC-DHB Document 46 Filed 04/05/13 Page 2 of 5
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

II. DISCUSSION 

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), discovery generally does

not commence until parties to an action meet and confer as prescribed by Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 26(f), unless allowed by court order or agreement of the parties. Fed. R.

Civ. Pro. 26(f). A court may permit early discovery if the requesting party demonstrates

good cause. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D.Cal.

2002). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration

of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Id. In

determining whether good cause justifies expedited discovery, courts commonly consider

the following factors: “(1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the

discovery requests; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden

on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical

discovery process the request was made.” Am. LegalNet., Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d at

1062, 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2009); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 768 F.Supp.2d

1040, 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2011). 

 As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendants assert several legal arguments

regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s claim under Title II and the merits of Plaintiff’s motion

for preliminary injunction in opposition to the request for early discovery.2

 However, this

Court expresses no opinion regarding the outcome of those motions, as those issues are the

province of the District Judge assigned to this case. Therefore, the Court will only address

the limited issue of whether Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to warrant expedited

discovery. The Court concludes that he has. 

Here, the Court finds the factors set forth in Am. LegalNet., Inc.v. Davis weigh in favor

of Plaintiff’s request to conduct expedited discovery. First, there is a motion for preliminary

injunction pending. (See ECF No. 18.) Second, Plaintiff argues his requests are narrowly

tailored to the issues in the motion for preliminary injunction. In particular, Plaintiff seeks

2

Defendants also object to Plaintiff’s motion on the ground that he failed to meet and confer as

required by Rule 37(a)(1) and the Court’s local rules. However, because Plaintiff’s motion is brought

under Rule 26(d), the Court finds Plaintiff has not violated the Federal or local rules. 

3 13cv346-W (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00346-GPC-DHB Document 46 Filed 04/05/13 Page 3 of 5
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

information about the NCAA’s certification rules, which Plaintiff alleges are discriminatory

and should not be enforced. Third, Plaintiff argues the discovery will assist the court in

resolving the motion for preliminary injunction. 

The Court has reviewed the proposed discovery requests, and finds the majority of the

information sought is relevant to the pending motion for preliminary injunction and is likely

to assist the Court in resolving the motion. However, the Court finds that some of the

requests are overbroad at this stage in the litigation. Specifically, the Court finds Plaintiff’s

requests should be limited to information about the NCAA’s policies from 2006 to present,

as the two coaching-certification policies that Plaintiff was subject to fall within that time

period. In addition, the Court finds that it would be burdensome for Defendants to produce

its Person Most Knowledgeable and Sandra Parrot for deposition on an expedited basis. 

Further, the Court believes Plaintiff can obtain sufficient information through written

discovery requests for purposes of the preliminary injunction motion. 

Defendants argue it would be unreasonable and unduly burdensome to allow expedited

discovery in light of the pending motions to dismiss. While a motion to dismiss may weigh

against expedited discovery in some cases, the Court finds that in the particular

circumstances of this action, where there is also a pending motion for preliminary injunction,

early discovery is appropriate. See e.g. Quintero Family Trust v. Onewest Bank, F.S.B., 2009

WL 3381804 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2009) (permitting expedited discovery where motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) was pending).

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has requested discovery to start fairly far in

advance of the normal course of discovery in this district. However, because the MSNM

Western Basketball Tournament is scheduled for this summer, the Court finds that under a

normal discovery schedule, it is likely Plaintiff would not be able to obtain discovery prior

to the tournament. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

4 13cv346-W (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00346-GPC-DHB Document 46 Filed 04/05/13 Page 4 of 5
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

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff may serve his First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to

Defendant NCAA. However, Plaintiff may not serve Requests Nos. 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and

17, as they are unduly burdensome at this stage in the litigation. Further, Plaintiff may not

serve Request No. 19, as it is duplicative of Request No. 18. 

2. Plaintiff may serve his First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant NCAA 

However, Plaintiff may not serve Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, and 19, as they are

unduly burdensome at this stage in the litigation.

3. Defendant NCAA shall respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of

Documents and Interrogatories within thirty (30) days after being served.

4. Plaintiff may not serve his proposed Notices of Deposition until after the Rule

26(f) conference has occurred.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 5, 2013

DAVID H. BARTICK

United States Magistrate Judge

5 13cv346-W (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00346-GPC-DHB Document 46 Filed 04/05/13 Page 5 of 5