Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01179/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01179-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Michelle Tyler, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

City of San Diego, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

Order Granting Motions 

for Protective Order 

[ECF Nos. 128, 129, 136] 

 The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 128, 129) seeking a 

protective order from Plaintiffs’ amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice to 

Defendant City of San Diego (“City”) dated March 23, 2015 (ECF No. 129-4). 

A Case Management Conference Order was issued in this case setting March 1, 

2015 as the deadline for completion of fact discovery. As set forth in the Case 

Management Conference Order: 

Fact discovery shall be completed on or before March 1, 2015. . . . 

“Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be 

initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cutoff date, so that it 

may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for 

services, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

(ECF No. 32, ¶5 (emphasis in original).) 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 141 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 5
 2 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

On November 3, 2014, Plaintiffs served an unquestionably timely deposition 

notice on the City pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). (ECF No. 129-

3.) The City filed a motion for protective order, which was granted in part and denied in 

part. (ECF Nos. 36, 42.) Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and then filed 

objections with the District Court. (ECF Nos. 46, 66.)1

 The objections were overruled 

on March 16, 2015. (ECF No. 102.) The result of the several orders was that Plaintiffs 

could take a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of the City as to 20 of the 21 written 

topics contained in Plaintiffs’ November 3, 2014 deposition notice (see ECF No. 36-3), 

as narrowed by the Court. (ECF Nos. 42, 59, 102.) 

On March 20, 2015, the Parties filed a joint motion to continue the deadline for the 

depositions of three witnesses, including the City’s 30(b)(6) witness(es). (ECF No. 103.) 

The joint motion stated, “Plaintiffs intend to depose the City’s Persons Most 

Knowledgeable (“PMKs”) regarding 20 topics.” (Id.) This was consistent with the 

Court’s orders on the permissible scope of the upcoming Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) 

deposition. (ECF Nos. 42, 59.) On March 23, 2015, while the joint motion was pending 

and without notifying the Court, Plaintiffs served an amended notice of deposition of the 

City’s 30(b)(6) witness(es) on 23 topics, including topics which had been precluded by 

the Court’s prior orders. (ECF No. 129-4.) Unaware of the issuance of the amended 

                                                                

1

 On February 9, 2015, after the Court had ruled on Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, but before 

Plaintiffs filed their objections, the Court granted the parties’ joint oral motion to continue the deadline 

for conducting the deposition of City’s 30(b)(6) witness(es) to March 31, 2015. (ECF No. 63.) 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 141 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 5
 3 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

notice, which was inconsistent with the representation of the pending joint motion, the 

Court granted the joint motion and extended the deadline for conducting the 30(b)(6) 

deposition to April 30, 2015. (ECF No. 107.) 

The City and Defendant Robert Filner filed motions for protective order to 

preclude Plaintiffs from proceeding on the amended notice of deposition.2

 Defendants’ 

motions for a protective order are GRANTED for the following reasons: 

First, the amended deposition notice is untimely. Thus, while the parties received 

extensions of time to complete the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition, discovery did not 

reopen to allow for Plaintiff’s March 23, 2015 amended deposition notice. Therefore, the 

Court grants Defendants a protective order as the March 23, 2015 deposition notice is 

untimely. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(a scheduling order is “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be 

cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.”). 

Second, a protective order also is warranted because the amended deposition notice 

failed to give Defendants reasonable notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1) (“A party who 

wants to depose a person by oral questions must give reasonable written notice to every 

                                                                

2

 Prior to the filing of these motions, the Parties met and conferred, a process which resulted in 

Plaintiffs’ twice more amending their deposition notices. (ECF Nos. 129-5, 129-6.) Because Plaintiffs’ 

opposition to the motions for a protective order treats the amended deposition notice dated April 16, 

2015 (ECF No. 129-6) as the operative deposition notice, this Court analyzes the April 16, 2015 

amended notice when addressing the substance of the operative notice. However, for purposes of 

timeliness, the Court will consider March 23 as the operative issuance date. Thus, Plaintiffs are not 

being penalized for amending their notice as a result of the meet and confer process. 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 141 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 5
 4 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

other party.”). At the time the March 23, 2015 amended deposition notice issued, the 

court-ordered deadline to complete the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of the City was 

March 31, 2015. The March 23 amended notice set March 30 as the date for the 

deposition and made significant, substantive changes to the deposition topics. Seven 

days is insufficient notice for the City to be able to adequately prepare for its Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 30(b)(6) deposition, especially given the substantive changes to the notice. 

Third, even if the Court were to rule on the merits of Plaintiffs’ amendments to the 

deposition notice, Defendants’ motions requesting a protective order would be granted. 

With respect to the April 16, 2015 notice, a protective order is appropriate concerning 

Topics 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. As redrafted, Topics 7, 8, 10 and 11 add the language 

“conduct that did violate or may have violated employee behavior provisions in the City 

of San Diego Employee Handbook in effect at the time” in place of the previously 

rejected language: “abusive conduct.” It would appear that Plaintiffs are disguising 

behind different language the same requests for discovery that the Court has already 

deemed unavailable to Plaintiffs in this litigation. Allowing this redraft would require 

this Court to revisit its prior rulings on Topics 1-18 (relating to any written, verbal or 

physical conduct of a sexual nature concerning claims of sexual harassment and sexual 

discrimination by Defendant Filner, and originally including “abusive conduct” 

language). Yet, there is nothing compelling before the Court to persuade it to do so. 

Thus, the law of the case doctrine also should apply to bar Plaintiffs’ redraft of Topics 7, 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 141 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 5
 5 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

8, 10 and 11. City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 888 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (the law of the case “doctrine was designed to further the principle that in 

order to maintain consistency during the course of a single lawsuit, reconsideration of 

legal questions previously decided should be avoided.”) (citation and quotation omitted)). 

Next, as to Topic 9 (Defendant Filner’s personnel file), any documents produced 

by the City in response to the Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 

139) will be available to Plaintiffs for use in asking questions on the November, 2014 

notice of deposition topics.3

 Questions on the relevant substance of those documents are 

covered by the November, 2014 deposition topics (see ECF No. 36-3), as narrowed by 

the Court (ECF Nos. 42, 59, 102).4

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 29, 2015 

                                                                

3

 On April 24, 2015, the City represented during a status conference with the Court and counsel for all 

parties that it intends to put forward 19 witnesses to provide Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) testimony. On 

Plaintiffs’ unopposed oral motion, the Court extended the deadline until May 29, 2015 for the parties to 

complete 4 of the 19 witnesses. It is the Court’s expectation that 1 or more of these 4 witnesses will be 

prepared to provide testimony on any personnel file documents produced in response to this Court’s 

ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel documents to the extent those documents are also covered by the 

November, 2014 deposition topics as narrowed by the Court. 

4

 Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel represented to the Court at the telephonic conference on April 15, 2015 (see 

ECF No. 123) that the amendments were made for the following two purposes: (1) to resolve 

Defendants’ objections to the November, 2014 notice; and (2) to address new developments in 

discovery. The Court is not persuaded that the new topics were necessitated by the need to respond to 

objections, or by new developments in discovery. With respect to the latter, each new topic addresses 

issues of concern to Plaintiffs since the beginning of this litigation. 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 141 Filed 04/29/15 Page 5 of 5