Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376-32/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Campbell
Plaintiff
PriceWaterhouse Coopers, LLP
Defendant
Sarah Sobek
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON CAMPBELL and

SARAH SOBEK, individually,

and on behalf of all other

similarly situated current

and former employees of 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,,

NO. CIV. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v.

PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS, LLP, O R D E R

a Limited Liability Partnership;,

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendant.

 /

Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PwC”) has filed an ex parte

application to extend the discovery cut-off date, pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Plaintiffs oppose this application. For the

reasons stated below, this application is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

The initial scheduling conference in this case was held on

January 22, 2007. Subsequent to that conference, this court

entered a scheduling order providing for close of non-expert

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 379 Filed 03/03/09 Page 1 of 5
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

 PwC separately filed a motion to compel and an ex parte 1

application for an order shortening time, which would have caused

that motion to be heard on February 19, 2009. The magistrate

assigned to this case denied the application on February 17. Thus,

the motion to compel is also set for March 21, 2009. 

2

discovery on June 22, 2008. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulations,

this order has been amended twice, extending discovery to October

8, 2008, and then to February 20, 2009. (Order of October 23,

2008). 

On February 4, 2009, PwC noticed depositions for six absent

class members, to be taken on February 12 through 20, 2009.

Plaintiffs oppose the taking of these depositions, and filed a

motion for a protective order on February 11, 2009. That hearing

is set for March 21, 2009.1

Of these six absent class members, one, Joseph Soave,

submitted a fourteen page declaration in support of plaintiffs’

motion for summary judgment. The declaration was submitted on

November 19, 2008. Three of the remaining individuals submitted

declarations supporting defendant’s opposition to class

certification. The remaining two individuals apparently have not

been specifically involved in this case. 

II. STANDARD

The discovery deadline was established by this court’s Fed.

R. Civ. P. 16 scheduling order, entered after the parties’ Rule

16(b)(1)(B) scheduling conference. Once a scheduling order is

issued, the schedule may only be modified "for good cause and with

the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 379 Filed 03/03/09 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Rule 16(b)'s "good cause" standard primarily considers the

diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1992).

[T]o demonstrate diligence under Rule 16's

"good cause" standard, the movant may be

required to show the following: (1) that she

was diligent in assisting the Court in

creating a workable Rule 16 order, see [In re

San Juan DuPont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 111

F.3d 220, 228 (1st Cir. 1997)]; (2) that her

noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred

or will occur, notwithstanding her diligent

efforts to comply, because of the development

of matters which could not have been

reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time

of the Rule 16 scheduling conference, see

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; and (3) that she was

diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16

order, once it became apparent that she could

not comply with the order, see [Eckert Cold

Storage v. Behl, 943 F. Supp. 1230, 1233 (E.D.

Cal. 1996)].

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999);

see also 6A, Wright, Miller & Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ.2d §

1522.1 ("good cause" means scheduling deadlines cannot be met

despite party's diligence).

III. ANALYSIS

Although plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order is not

presently before this court, that motion relates to the present

issue. Plaintiffs argue that discovery of absent class members is

disfavored. It is clear that such discovery presents special

concerns. See 7B, Wright, Miller & Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ.2d

§ 1796.1. Accordingly, courts have held that such discovery must

be limited. See, e.g., Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S.

797, 810 n.2 (1985) (noting that discovery is rarely imposed on

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 379 Filed 03/03/09 Page 3 of 5
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

4

absent class members), Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190,

1202 n.9 (9th Cir. 2008) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 imposes inherent

limitations on absent class member discovery), Cox v. American Cast

Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546, 1556 (11th Cir. 1986).

PwC therefore had reason to expect that the appropriateness

of any discovery directed to absent class members would need to be

argued before the magistrate assigned to this case. PwC also has

shown no reason why it could not have sought this discovery at an

earlier point. Absent class members Soave’s declaration was filed

on November 19, 2008. PwC has not provided an explanation as to

why it delayed until February 4, 2009 to notice his deposition.

The remaining five absent class members apparently could have been

deposed at any time, as PwC has not stated why its decision to seek

to depose these individuals could not have been made earlier.

In light of the foreseeability of both the reasons for

deposing these absent class members and the likely challenge to the

appropriateness of such depositions, PwC should have noticed these

depositions at a time that would allow this question to be resolved

prior to the scheduled close of discovery. PwC has not shown that

its failure to do so was consistent with the exercise of diligent

efforts to comply with the scheduling order. PwC therefore has not

shown good cause for modification of that order.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, defendant PwC’s ex parte

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 379 Filed 03/03/09 Page 4 of 5
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

5

application to extend the discovery cut-off date is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 3, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 379 Filed 03/03/09 Page 5 of 5