Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07673/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07673-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

ORDER – No. 18-cv-07673-LB

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

San Francisco Division

DIANA A. MONROE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOODFELLOW TOP GRADE,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-07673-LB

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST 

SCHEDULING DEPOSITION ON 

SEPTEMBER 4, 2019

Re: ECF No. 40

The court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the subject matter and procedural history of 

this case. The parties raise a dispute concerning the scheduling of the deposition of plaintiff Diana 

Monroe. The court can decide this matter without oral argument. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

Defendant Goodfellow Top Grade originally noticed Ms. Monroe’s deposition for August 20, 

2019.1 On July 31, Goodfellow proposed (and Ms. Monroe agreed) to take Ms. Monroe’s 

deposition off calendar given the imminent pretrial and trial deadlines in Hill v. Goodfellow Top 

Grade, No. 4:18-cv-01474-HSG (N.D. Cal.), another Title VII lawsuit against Goodfellow 

involving the same plaintiff and defense counsel, which is set to go to trial on September 9.2

 

1

Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 40 at 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2

Id. at 1–2; Joint Letter Br. Ex. A – ECF No. 40 at 7.

Case 3:18-cv-07673-LB Document 41 Filed 08/28/19 Page 1 of 3
ORDER – No. 18-cv-07673-LB 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

On August 21, Goodfellow asked to take Ms. Monroe’s deposition on September 4.3 Ms. 

Monroe objected, noting that the parties had agreed to take Ms. Monroe’s deposition off calendar 

until after the Hill trial concluded, and offered instead to sit for a deposition in mid or late 

September.4 Goodfellow responded that if Ms. Monroe agreed not to appear as a witness in the 

Hill trial, it would agree to depose her after the trial, but that otherwise it would take her 

deposition on September 4 so that it could hear her testimony before the trial.5 Ms. Monroe now 

moves for a protective order, arguing that she and her counsel (who are representing her pro bono) 

are unavailable on September 4 and that compelling her to sit for a deposition on September 4 

could implicate a conflict of interest by pressuring her counsel (who are also representing the 

plaintiff in Hill pro bono) to take her out of the Hill case to properly prepare her for her deposition 

here.6

To the extent that Goodfellow is trying to schedule Ms. Monroe’s deposition for September 4

in order to be able to use her testimony in the Hill trial, its request is improper. On August 26, 

Goodfellow filed a motion to compel Ms. Monroe’s deposition in Hill, and on August 27, the 

presiding judge there denied its motion.7It is not for Goodfellow to try to use this case to 

accomplish here what it could not accomplish there. To the extent that Goodfellow claims it needs 

to take Ms. Monroe’s deposition in order to prepare for the settlement conference in this case, the 

settlement conference is not until October 21, which is over five weeks after the Hill trial is 

scheduled to end. The court finds that Ms. Monroe has shown good cause and grants her request 

 

3

Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 40 at 2; Joint Letter Br. Ex. B – ECF No. 40 at 10.

4

Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 40 at 2; Joint Letter Br. Ex. B – ECF No. 40 at 10.

5

Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 40 at 2; Joint Letter Br. Ex. B – ECF No. 40 at 10.

6

Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 40 at 2; Joint Letter Br. Ex. B – ECF No. 40 at 9. Ms. Monroe also notes 

that the case is in the early stages of fact discovery and that she is still searching for documents 

responsive to Goodfellow’s request, and that deposing her now runs the risk of Goodfellow’s later 

seeking to take a second deposition of her after she produces documents. Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 40 

at 2–3.

7

Id. at 3.

Case 3:18-cv-07673-LB Document 41 Filed 08/28/19 Page 2 of 3
ORDER – No. 18-cv-07673-LB 3

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

for a protective order against scheduling her deposition on September 4. The court orders the 

parties to meet and confer about alternative dates after the Hill trial for Ms. Monroe’s deposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-07673-LB Document 41 Filed 08/28/19 Page 3 of 3