Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01186/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01186-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1 

3:15-cv-1186-CAB-LL 

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 

BRENDA MOORE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

GREYHOUND LINES INC. AND U.S. 

SECURITY ASSOCIATE, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 3:15-cv-1186-CAB-LL 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

GREYHOUND LINES INC.’S 

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY 

MOTION HEARING DATE 

[ECF No. 121] 

On February 5, 2019, Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. filed a “Request for 

Discovery Motion Hearing Date Pursuant to Civil Chamber Rules § V.” ECF No. 121. 

Defendant requests that the Court set a discovery conference at or immediately after the 

Mandatory Settlement Conference currently set for February 11, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. to 

discuss: (1) Plaintiff’s alleged failure or refusal to appear at her Noticed Deposition; and 

(2) Greyhound’s First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and 

Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff. See ECF No. 121. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Request for a 

Discovery Motion Hearing Date. 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-01186-CAB-LL Document 124 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

3:15-cv-1186-CAB-LL 

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. Plaintiff’s Alleged Failure Or Refusal To Appear At Her Deposition

Defendant alleges that on October 11, 2018, Defendant served Plaintiff with a Notice 

of Deposition set for October 30, 2018 via FedEx with signature required. ECF No. 121 

at 3. Defendant alleges that “[a]fter three attempts” at delivery “the FedEx envelope was 

returned to Greyhound’s counsel’s office.” Id. Defendant alleges that on October 26, 

2018, Defendant successfully served Plaintiff with an Amended Notice of Deposition set 

for November 13, 2018 via regular mail and FedEx with no signature required. Id. 

Defendant alleges that “Plaintiff failed or refused to appear for the deposition.” Id. 

Subsequently, Defendant alleges that on November 20, 2018, Defendant sent 

Plaintiff a letter by regular mail, certified mail, and by FedEx “inviting Plaintiff to meet 

and confer to avoid motion practice and a request for sanctions based on Plaintiff’s refusal 

to appear for deposition” to which Defendant has “received no response[.]” Id. Defendant 

therefore requests that the Court issue a discovery motion hearing date under Section V of 

this Court’s Civil Chamber Rules. 

The instant case was transferred from Magistrate Judge Dembin to Magistrate Judge 

Lopez on November 6, 2018. Under this Court’s Civil Chamber Rules: 

Any motion related to discovery disputes must be filed no later

than thirty (30) days after the date upon which the event giving 

rise to the dispute occurred. For oral discovery, the event giving 

rise to the dispute is the completion of the transcript of the 

relevant portion of the deposition. For written discovery, the 

event giving rise to the discovery dispute is the date of service of 

the response, or the passage of a discovery due date without 

response or production, not the date on which counsel reach an 

impasse in meet and confer efforts. 

Magistrate Judge Lopez’s Civil Chamber Rules, Section V.C (emphasis in original). 

 The Civil Chamber Rules further specify that prior to bringing a discovery dispute, 

the Parties must “meet and confer” and “[i]f a party is unresponsive to a request to meet 

Case 3:15-cv-01186-CAB-LL Document 124 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

3:15-cv-1186-CAB-LL 

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

and confer, after 72 hours counsel shall contact chambers and the Court will set a telephonic 

conference with the clerk assigned to the case.” Id. at Section V.A 

 Here, Defendant failed to raise this dispute to the Court’s attention until February 5, 

2019, over two months after Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to appear for her deposition 

and a day after the fact discovery cutoff. See ECF Nos. 108, 121. Defendant has not 

advanced any reason why it failed to raise this dispute in a timely manner. 

 For these reasons, the Court finds this dispute is untimely and declines to consider 

it. See In re Ameranth Cases, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61753, at *17-18 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 

2018) (declining to consider discovery dispute filed after deadline set in Chamber Rules). 

See also Obesity Research Inst., LLC v. Fiber Research Int'l, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

97724, at *7 (S.D. Cal. June 23, 2017) (Magistrate Judges’ thirty-day discovery dispute 

deadlines in this District are not contrary to law). 

2. Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests 

for Admissions

Defendant states it “anticipates that Plaintiff will not respond to Greyhound’s [F]irst 

[S]et of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for 

Admissions to Plaintiff” which Defendant served by mail on January 4, 2019. ECF No. 

121 at 3. At the time Defendant filed the instant Request, Plaintiff’s responses to 

Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and 

Requests for Admissions were not yet due. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), 33, 34, 36. 

Accordingly, this dispute is not yet ripe for the Court’s attention. 

Nevertheless, the Court has taken into account the difficulties Defendant’s counsel 

has had in the past in attempting to meaningfully meet and confer with Plaintiff. For these 

reasons, in the event the case does not settle during the Mandatory Settlement Conference, 

Plaintiff and Defendant’s counsel are ORDERED to meet and confer in-person 

immediately after the Mandatory Settlement Conference regarding all outstanding 

discovery issues. 

Case 3:15-cv-01186-CAB-LL Document 124 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

3:15-cv-1186-CAB-LL 

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

The Court expects both Parties to earnestly engage in the meet and confer process. 

Although the Court is mindful that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has already 

advised Plaintiff on a prior occasion that “[e]ven self-represented litigants must follow the 

same rules of procedures that govern other litigants.” ECF No. 108 at 4 (citing Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). 

At the conclusion of the meet and confer conference, Plaintiff and Defendant’s 

counsel shall jointly call Chambers by February 15, 2019 and notify the clerk of the Court 

assigned to this case as to any remaining and timely discovery disputes. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 6, 2019 

Case 3:15-cv-01186-CAB-LL Document 124 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4