Opinion
21-cv-01998-EMC (LJC)
03-22-2024
CYNTHIA S WILLS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MONTEREY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS RE: DKT. NOS. 161, 162
LISA J. CISNEROS, United States Magistrate Judge.
At a status conference on March 14, 2024, Judge Chen continued the close of fact discovery from March 28, 2024 to April 30, 2024. ECF No. 163. Defendant the City of Monterey and Plaintiff Cynthia Wills filed submissions addressing that change of schedule. ECF Nos. 161, 162. After those submissions were filed, at a hearing on March 21, 2024, Judge Chen continued the trial date in this action and stayed depositions, but declined to alter deadlines for written discovery.
Wills's present submission is captioned as “Plaintiff's Second Request for a F.R.C.P. 26(c) Protective Order and F.R.C.P. 30(b)(4) Deposition by Remote Means [Offsite],” ECF No. 162 (brackets in original), and exceeds by one page the three pages allowed by this Court's March 13, 2024 Order for letter briefs regarding discovery disputes, ECF No. 156 at 3-4. The Court nevertheless deems it a discovery letter brief submitted under the procedure set by that Order, and excuses the extra page in this instance. Future filings that do not comply with applicable page limits and other procedural requirements may be disregarded.
Both parties' arguments primarily address Wills's deposition, which has now been stayed by Judge Chen. This Court therefore finds all arguments as to the date of Wills's deposition to be moot. As for the format of that deposition, whenever it might occur, Wills has not demonstrated that the Court's previous Order requiring her to appear for a video deposition in a room designated by Defendants would harm her health or create any unreasonable risk of harm. Although Wills has recently claimed that she could arrange to appear for her deposition by videoconference from a location of her choosing, Wills has otherwise consistently taken the position throughout this case that she cannot appear by videoconference for hearings, case management conferences, or meetings with opposing counsel. This abrupt shift in position calls into question Wills's ability to reliably arrange for her own location for her videoconference deposition. The Court therefore declines to alter its previous Order regarding the format of Wills's deposition.
Wills's letter brief also appears to seek a stay of all discovery, including written discovery, although she does not address that issue in any meaningful depth. The Court previously ordered Wills to serve discovery responses and produce documents to Defendant Montage Health no later than March 22, 2024 (ECF No. 147 at 14-15) and to the City no later than March 26, 2024 (ECF No. 156 at 16). Although the City has moved to stay the case pending a decision by the Supreme Court that might affect Wills's Eighth Amendment claim against the City, Judge Chen has not yet ruled on that motion. Until he does, the parties and this Court must be prepared for the possibility that the stay will be denied and fact discovery will need to be completed before the April 30, 2024 cutoff. Moreover, the Supreme Court's decision will have no bearing on Wills's disability discrimination claims against Montage Health. The Court therefore declines to vacate Wills's response deadlines for written discovery, but grants Wills brief extensions of both deadlines in light of the extended discovery cutoff. Wills must provide complete responses and produce documents (as required by this Court's previous Orders, ECF Nos. 147, 156) to Montage Health no later than April 1, 2024, and to the City no later than April 8, 2024.
Absent any intervening order by Judge Chen, no further extensions of those deadlines will be granted. Wills is advised that any party's request for relief (of any kind) does not in itself alter her obligation to comply with this Order. Failure to comply may result in sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.