Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07130/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07130-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

ANTHONY A. JAMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEMPUR SEALY INTERNATIONAL, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-07130-SI 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

EXTEND THE SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE DEADLINE

Re: Dkt. No. 71

On April 8, 2020, defendant filed an administrative motion to extend the settlement 

conference deadline to August 31, 2020. Dkt. No. 71. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on 

April 13, 2020. Dkt. No. 72. The Court has considered the parties’ papers and exhibits and hereby 

DENIES defendant’s motion to extend the settlement conference deadline.

The parties appeared before the Court for a case management conference on December 9, 

2019. Dkt. No. 59. The Court set a trial date of January 19, 2021, and ordered that the parties 

appear for a settlement conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Spero in March or April 2020. Id. 

Plaintiff’s deposition is currently scheduled for April 14, 2020, and the settlement conference before 

Judge Spero is set for April 28, 2020. 

Defendant states that it cannot participate in settlement discussions until it has taken 

plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff has arranged for the deposition to be taken by video conference, but 

defendant does not wish to proceed in that manner. Defendant “believes it will be prejudiced if it is 

unable to depose him in person, which it cannot do until the current shelter-in-place restrictions are 

lifted. Similarly, Defendant prefers that the settlement conference also take place in person.” Dkt. 

No. 71 at 1.

Case 3:18-cv-07130-SI Document 73 Filed 04/13/20 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

Some of the issues the parties dispute regarding settlement may be better addressed to Judge 

Spero. With regard to the video deposition, the Court sees no reason why the deposition cannot 

proceed in this way. The current public health emergency and shelter-in-place orders related to 

COVID-19 have caused many of the usual court operations to be conducted by telephone or video. 

See, e.g., General Order Nos. 72 (stating that civil hearings will be conducted by telephone or video 

conference), 74 (permitting the temporary use of teleconferencing and video conferencing in certain 

criminal matters pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES 

ACT”)). The Court sees no reason why plaintiff’s deposition cannot similarly be conducted via 

video conference, particularly given the uncertainty regarding when the shelter-in-place restrictions 

will be lifted. 

In its motion, defendant makes the additional argument that plaintiff’s deposition cannot 

move forward now because, “pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4), a remote 

deposition may occur only upon the stipulation of the parties or court order, neither of which is 

present in this case.”1 Dkt. No. 71 at 3. To the extent defendant perceives the lack of court order 

to be an obstacle to a video deposition, the Court hereby ORDERS that plaintiff’s deposition proceed 

by video conference.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s administrative motion to extend the settlement 

conference deadline is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) provides, in part, “The parties may stipulate—or 

the court may on motion order—that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means. . . .”

Case 3:18-cv-07130-SI Document 73 Filed 04/13/20 Page 2 of 2