Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-00098 SI

(Related Case No. C 04-0099 SI)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL PIGORS

On May 6, 2005, in connectionwith various Rule 56(f) motions, plaintiffs filed a request with the Court

seeking to exceed seven hours for the deposition of FedEx Western Region Vice President Michael Pigors.

Pigors’ deposition was taken on January 28, 2005, but according to plaintiffs, defense counsel ended

questioning at the conclusion of seven hours. Plaintiffs contend that they need more time to question Pigors

because (1) he is or was the manager of at least 10 of the 15 individual defendant managers in the case, and

counsel has “many outstanding questions relative to the Plaintiffs’ individual complaints” for him; and (2) his

deposition testimony established that he worked his way up through the ranks of FedEx, is friends with many

ofthe defendant managers, and has had intimate sexual relationships with at least six FedEx female employees

(one of whom he married), none of whom work for FedEx any longer. Pls.’ May 6, 2005 Letter Br. at 1-2.

 (Docket #130.) 

Defendant argues that additionaltime will not lead to discovery of admissible evidence, because Pigors

did notmake anyemployment decisions about plaintiffs; they do not know him or have had no contact with him;

and his personallife is notrelevant to this action. In addition, defendant contends that plaintiffs had ample time

during the seven-hour deposition to obtain any relevant information, but instead spent time questioning Pigors

about his “dating habits in the early 1980s, . . . [his] wedding in 1990, and who he invited to his wedding, the

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 230 Filed 09/12/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

race of his personal physician, and the race and gender of his tax accountant.” Def.’s May 23, 2005 Letter

Br. at 3. (Docket #134.)

The Court agrees with defendant that plaintiffs have failed to adequately explain their need to exceed

the seven-hour deposition. Many areas of questioning appear to be entirely irrelevant to this action, and to the

extent that Pigors’s position as severalofthe individualdefendants’ manager makes him an appropriate witness

in the case, plaintiffs have had sufficient time to explore his involvement in management decisions that adversely

impacted any of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to compel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 230 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 2