Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00365/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00365-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Home Depot USA, Inc.
Defendant
Rogelio Sanchez
Plaintiff
Spectrum Brands, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGELIO SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00365-ADA-EPG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL, 

MODIFYING THE CASE SCHEDULE

(ECF Nos. 54, 56)

This product liability action alleges that Plaintiff suffered injuries after a candle exploded 

and ejected wax or other substances onto his body. (ECF No. 1-2, pp. 2-3). Now before the Court 

is Plaintiff’s motion to compel the depositions of Defendants’ “persons most knowledgeable” 

(PMK). (ECF No. 56). The Court held a hearing on January 24, 2023, and, for the reasons stated 

on the record and below, will grant the motion to compel and modify the case schedule to allow 

the parties to conduct the depositions and finish discovery.

Rule 37 permits a party to move for an order compelling discovery if, among other 

circumstances, an entity fails to designate a deponent under Rule 30(b)(6) or a deponent fails to 

answer a question. Rule 37(a)(3)(b)(i)-(ii). Citing this rule, Plaintiff argues that, despite 

contacting defense counsel numerous times since February 2021 to schedule the PMK 

depositions, Defendants failed to designate persons under Rule 30(b)(6) and failed to appear at 

noticed depositions. (ECF No. 56, p. 6). Defendants failed to file any opposition brief, and at the 

hearing, defense counsel stated that he would not oppose the motion. See Local Rule 230(c) (“A 

Case 1:20-cv-00365-JLT-EPG Document 61 Filed 01/24/23 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

2

failure to file a timely opposition may also be construed by the Court as a nonopposition to the 

motion.”). 

Based on these circumstances, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel and will 

order Defendants to provide the PMK depositions by the deadlines set forth below and discussed 

on the record.

1 Further, because the Court will extend the deadline to conduct the depositions, the 

Court will likewise modify other dates and deadlines in the scheduling order. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel the Defendants’ PMK depositions (ECF No. 56) is granted.

a. Defendant Spectrum Brands Inc.’s designee is ordered to participate in a 

deposition on February 9-10, 2023.2

b. By no later than February 8, 2023, Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc. shall provide 

notice of its designee and the dates that the designee can participate in a deposition 

that will take place no later than March 17, 2023.

c. Defendants are warned that failure to comply with this order may subject them to 

sanctions, including evidentiary sanctions.

2. The scheduling order, as amended, (ECF Nos. 26, 28, 31, 33, 37, 47, 54) is further 

modified as follows:

Deadline/Date Type Current Deadline/Date New Deadline/Date

Non-expert Discovery Cutoff, 

for the limited purpose of 

conducting “PMK” 

depositions

December 14, 2022 March 17, 2023

Expert Discovery Cutoff, for 

the limited purpose of 

deposing all expert witnesses

February 1, 2023 April 28, 2023

1 While the Court raised the issue of sanctions at the hearing, Plaintiff stated that he would not be seeking 

sanctions at this time but reserves his right to seek sanctions if Defendants fail to comply with this order.

2

If the parties agree that two days are not needed for the deposition, the deposition may proceed on only 

one of these days. 

Case 1:20-cv-00365-JLT-EPG Document 61 Filed 01/24/23 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

3

Daubert Motions February 24, 2023 May 10, 2023

Pretrial Conference3 April 10, 2023 July 10, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. in 

Courtroom 1 (ADA)

Trial July 24, 2023 October 3, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.

in Courtroom 1 (ADA)

Participation in Mediation or 

Settlement Conference

None May 31, 2023

1. With District Judge Ana de Alba’s reassignment (ECF No. 51) to this case on August 24, 

2022, the parties are directed to review her standing order on the Court’s website, which 

addresses her requirements for pretrial conferences and trials and is available at:

https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/ADA/ADA%20Standing%20Order_1

2162022.pdf

2. Among other things, the standing order requires the parties “to file a Joint Pretrial 

statement seven days (7) before the Final Pretrial Conference hearing date,” with the Joint 

Pretrial statement being emailed as a Word document to adaorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

3. Under the existing scheduling order, the deadline to file motions in limine, among other 

filings, will be set at the pretrial conference. (ECF No. 26, p. 5). 

4. By no later than February 17, 2023, the parties are directed to jointly email Courtroom 

Deputy Michelle Rooney (mrooney@caed.uscourts.gov) regarding their plans for 

settlement negotiations, including their chosen means (private mediation or settlement 

conference with the Court) and proposed dates.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3 The parties are reminded that they still have the option of voluntarily consenting to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction, in which case the trial would be set before the undersigned on dates certain without the risk of 

continuance due to other matters.

Case 1:20-cv-00365-JLT-EPG Document 61 Filed 01/24/23 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

4

Case 1:20-cv-00365-JLT-EPG Document 61 Filed 01/24/23 Page 4 of 4