From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanchez v. Spectrum Brands, Inc.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jan 24, 2023
1:20-cv-00365-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2023)

Opinion

1:20-cv-00365-ADA-EPG

01-24-2023

ROGELIO SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendants.


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 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. 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.

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.

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.
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.

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

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

Daubert Motions

February 24, 2023

May 10, 2023

Pretrial Conference

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

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.

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_12162022.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.


Summaries of

Sanchez v. Spectrum Brands, Inc.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jan 24, 2023
1:20-cv-00365-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2023)
Case details for

Sanchez v. Spectrum Brands, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ROGELIO SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jan 24, 2023

Citations

1:20-cv-00365-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2023)