Opinion
20-cv-02552-PJH
07-21-2021
TERESA LEMOON, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS
RE: DKT. NO. 91
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge
The court is in receipt of plaintiff's third revised letter brief requesting that the court permit her to take a total of 14 depositions. Dkt. 91. In it, plaintiff explains that defendants have agreed to permit her to take one additional deposition (for a total of 11 depositions). Id. However, the parties have “reached an impasse” on the remaining three depositions of defendant Tashi Choera, R.N. (“Choera”), as well as non-parties Darlla Roesler (“Roesler”) and Carin Kottraba, Ph.D (“Kottraba”). Id.
The court GRANTS plaintiff's request with respect to Choera. Choera is a party defendant in this action. Based on plaintiff's representations, it also appears that she may have information relevant to decedent's processing while in custody. Plaintiff must complete Choera's deposition by the July 28, 2021 fact discovery cutoff.
The court DENIES plaintiff's request with respect to Roesler and Kottraba. In its July 7, 2021 order, the court stated that, in any renewed request for additional depositions, plaintiff must explain why the eleventh hour timing of her request is appropriate despite the unfairness to defendants in having to defend such additional depositions so late in discovery. Dkt. 86 at 10. Plaintiff failed to offer any such explanation in her third revised letter. The court also does not see anything unique about Roesler or Kottraba that would justify their depositions with only a week left in discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.