Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00568/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00568-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

M.D. RICHARD YOCUM,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv568-GPC (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL, IMPOSING

SANCTIONS AND AMENDING

THE SCHEDULING ORDER

[ECF NO. 49]

vs.

ROCKWELL MEDICAL

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel the further deposition of

Plaintiff, for sanctions and to amend the scheduling order. (ECF No. 49). The motion

was filed on November 21, 2012. Id. Defendants responded, as required by the

Court, on November 30, 2012. (ECF Nos. 50, 51). As discussed below, Defendants’

motion to compel, for sanctions and to amend the scheduling order is GRANTED. 

Background

This case stems from the alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff by

Defendants. (ECF No. 1). Discovery closed on October 29, 2012. (ECF. No. 24). 

That same day, a discovery motion was filed with the Court. (ECF No. 37). On

October 31, 2012, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference resulting in an

amended scheduling order. (ECF Nos. 43, 44). Based upon the agreement of the

parties during the discovery conference, the Court permitted certain discovery to

- 1 - 12cv568-GPC (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00568-GPC-MDD Document 53 Filed 12/03/12 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

proceed. Specifically, the Court ordered Plaintiff, as agreed during the conference, to

respond to outstanding written discovery requests by November 2, 2012. (ECF No.

44). Any further disputes regarding the written discovery were to be brought before 1

the Court no later than November 7, 2012. Id. Regarding depositions, the parties

agreed that Plaintiff was to be deposed on November 5, 2012; that Defendants’

employee Dr. Gupta was to be deposed on November 6, 2012; that the telephonic

depositions of Plaintiff’s children would be taken on November 9, 2012, and that four

other employees of Defendants would be deposed in Detroit, Michigan, on November

15-17, 2012. Id.

Plaintiff’s deposition proceeded on November 5, 2012. According to

Defendants’ counsel, only two pages of documents were produced by Plaintiff prior to

the deposition. (ECF No. 49, ¶7). Plaintiff asserts that a number of documents were

produced and sent by electronic mail to counsel for Defendants on November 2 and 4,

2012. (ECF. No. 51-1, ¶2). Regardless, the parties agree that during his deposition,

Plaintiff identified a number of other responsive documents in his possession that

had not previously been produced. (ECF No. 49, ¶7; ECF No. 51 at 6). The

remaining documents were produced on November 9, 2012. (ECF No. 49, ¶11; ECF

No. 51-1, ¶5). Following this production, on November 14, 2012, counsel for Plaintiff

agreed that Plaintiff had to be re-deposed. (ECF No. 49-9). The deposition has not

been scheduled prompting the instant motion. 

Defendants assert that Plaintiff must be ordered to submit to a further

deposition regarding issues raised by the late production of documents. Plaintiff 2

 The Court’s notes reflect that the parties agreed to the date of November 2, 2012, for 1

Plaintiffto respond to the outstanding discovery. The resultant Court Order, however, provided

the date of November 7, 2012. The wrong date was the result of a typographical error. It

appears that the parties understood that the actual date was November 2, 2012. 

On November 7, 2012, Defendants filed a discovery motion challenging 2

Plaintiff’s refusal to produce certain documents without a protective order. (ECF No.

46). The Court granted the motion the next day ordering production no later than

November 15, 2012. (ECF No. 48). Neither party has suggested that the documents at

issue here are the same documents at issue in the November 7, 2012, motion. 

- 2 - 12cv568-GPC (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00568-GPC-MDD Document 53 Filed 12/03/12 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

asserts that Defendants have not been diligent as there was time available on

November 17, 2012, in Detroit, for Plaintiff to be re-deposed and Defendants did not

make the request. It does not appear from the record that Plaintiff offered to be redeposed on that date. 

Discussion

The parties agreed that Plaintiff is subject to further deposition regarding the

documents produced after his deposition but seem unable to agree on a date, place

and time. Defendants seek sanctions in the form of imposing costs upon Plaintiff for

the further deposition and seek relief from the dispositive motion filing deadline of

December 7, 2012. 

The Court agrees that the further deposition of Plaintiff is warranted limited

to an examination of issues raised in the documents produced after his first

deposition. The Court also agrees that the need for the further deposition was caused

by Plaintiff’s failure timely to produce the documents. The Court is not convinced

that Defendants were not diligent in seeking the further deposition of Plaintiff. 

There is nothing in the record suggesting that Plaintiff offered to be deposed earlier. 

Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants should have fit Plaintiff in on November 7 is

unavailing; there is nothing in the record to suggest that Defendants were prepared

that day to depose Plaintiff regarding the documents produced following his initial

deposition. 

The Court finds that the failure of Plaintiff to produce responsive documents

prior to his deposition served to frustrate the fair examination of Plaintiff by

Defendants within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(2). Rule 30(d)(2) provides

authority for the Court to impose an appropriate sanction. 

The Court finds that an appropriate sanction in this case is for Plaintiff to bear

the costs of his further deposition. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff is to pay the

reasonable expenses for his further deposition. If Plaintiff travels to Defendants’

location, Plaintiff is to bear the reasonable cost of the court reporter. If Plaintiff

- 3 - 12cv568-GPC (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00568-GPC-MDD Document 53 Filed 12/03/12 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

prefers that Defendants’ counsel travel to Plaintiff’s location, Plaintiff is to bear the

cost of Defendants’ counsels’ travel and lodging, if necessary, and the cost of the court

reporter. Defendants’ attorney’s fees, in either event, are not included. The Court

further ORDERS that Plaintiff’s further deposition occur no later than December

14, 2012. 

Finally, as the date by which dispositive motions must be filed currently is

December 7, 2012, the Court will amend the scheduling order to extend the date by

which dispositive motions must be filed to December 31, 2012. 

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion to compel, for sanctions and to amend the scheduling order

is GRANTED as provided herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 3, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 4 - 12cv568-GPC (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00568-GPC-MDD Document 53 Filed 12/03/12 Page 4 of 4