Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05001/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05001-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SLACK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RUSSELL E. BURNS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05001-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SET 

EXPERT DEPOSITION OR, IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, TO MODIFY 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Docket No. 294

Previously, the Court issued an order setting a briefing and hearing schedule for the 

parties’ motions for summary judgment. See Docket No. 266 (order). Under that order, Plaintiffs’ 

reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment and Plaintiffs’ opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (one consolidated brief) is due on June 2, 2016. 

Defendants’ reply in support of their motion for summary judgment is due on June 9, 2016. The 

hearing on both parties’ motions is set for June 30, 2016.

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion in which they ask that the Court 

order Defendants to produce their expert for deposition prior to June 2, i.e., the day that Plaintiffs’ 

brief is due. (The expert submitted a declaration in support of Defendants’ opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.) 

In the alternative, Plaintiffs ask that the court adjust the remaining briefing schedule and hearing 

date so that they may depose Defendants’ expert before their brief is due.

Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby 

rules as follows.

The hearing on the parties’ motions is hereby rescheduled for July 7, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. 

Case 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Document 297 Filed 05/19/16 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

For the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs’ remaining brief shall be filed by June 7, 2016. Defendants’ remaining brief 

shall be filed by June 16, 2016.

Defendants shall produce their expert for deposition no later than June 3, 2016. The 

parties shall meet and confer regarding a reasonable date, time, and location. The Court authorizes 

a deposition on the weekend.

Plaintiffs shall produce their expert for deposition no later than June 12, 2016. As above, 

the parties shall meet and confer regarding a reasonable date, time, and location, and the Court 

authorizes a deposition on the weekend.

Finally, the Court hereby sanctions defense counsel (not Defendants) pursuant to its

inherent authority. The Court finds that defense counsel has engaged in conduct amounting to bad 

faith. See Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs’ request to depose 

Defendants’ expert prior to Plaintiffs’ briefing due date was reasonable and was consistent with 

the briefing and hearing schedule previously ordered by the Court. Defense counsel’s refusal to 

entertain any compromise (including, e.g., an adjustment to the briefing and hearing schedule) is 

not justified in any way. Defense counsel is ordered to pay Plaintiffs $500 which is a rough 

approximation of the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiffs in preparing their motion for 

relief before this Court. Such payment shall be made within three days of this order.

This order disposes of Docket No. 294.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Document 297 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 2