Opinion
23-cv-00200-VC (RMI)
06-26-2024
AMY BRAVO, Plaintiff, v. SAN BENITO COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE: DKT. NO. 39
ROBERT M. ILLMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Now pending before the court is a jointly-filed discovery dispute letter brief through which Defendants seeks to compel Plaintiff's appearance at a deposition to be scheduled on a mutually agreeable date. See Ltr. Br. (dkt. 39) at 3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument.
The close of fact discovery in this case was originally set as January 9, 2024 (see dkt. 24) and was later extended to May 10, 2024 (see dkt. 33). Pursuant to local rule - Defendants' request to compel this deposition would have been timely if filed no later than 7 days after the fact discovery cut-off date, or May 17, 2025. See Civil L.R. 37-3. Further, “[d]iscovery requests that call for responses or depositions after the applicable discovery cut-off are not enforceable, except by order of the Court for good cause shown.” Id. While Defendants have set forth a history of communications between the Parties regarding scheduling matters and general discussions about possibly seeking extensions of time, Defendants have not shown good cause why they failed to file their request to compel this deposition in a timely fashion, or in the alternative, why they failed to timely move under Civil L.R. 6-3 for an extension of the applicable cut-off date for the purpose of continuing their discussion about submitting “a possible joint request to extend the fact discovery deadline” for the completion of this deposition. See Ltr. Br. (dkt. 39) at 3. Because Defendants have not shown good cause for their failure to seek to compel this deposition before the expiration of the deadline for doing so, their request is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.