Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anderson v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 16, 2016

EZELL ANDERSON, JR., Doing Business As Mom’s Choice Meats, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; KEVIN CONCANNON, Undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; JOCELYN KEH, Section Chief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture, and their successors in office,, Defendants.

          PHILLIP A. TALBERT ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ALYSON A. BERG Attorney for Defendant United States

          EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF COMPLETING PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION; ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         The United States requests a brief extension of time by which discovery is to be completed from June 15, 2016 to and including July 22, 2016, for the limited purpose of completing the deposition of Plaintiff, Ezell Anderson, Jr., based on the following:

         1. The United States’ counsel took the deposition of Plaintiff Ezell Anderson, Jr. on May 17, 2016. Toward the end of the deposition, a dispute arose regarding questions about a “suggestion” made by Plaintiff in a settlement letter.

         2. Counsel for the United States sought to resolve the dispute at the deposition by offering Plaintiff two options. Either Plaintiff could answer the questions about the “suggestion, ” or maintain his refusal to discuss the “suggestion, ” provided that, he would not assert the “suggestion” in any future motions or at trial. Plaintiff would not agree to either option.

         3. After the parties were unable to resolve the dispute informally at the deposition, it was agreed that the parties would not complete the deposition, and the United States reserved the right to complete the deposition if Plaintiff continued to maintain that he would not answer questions about the “suggestion, ” and assert that such undisclosed “suggestion” could be used in defense of any motion or at trial.

         4. Two more efforts were made to resolve the dispute informally after the deposition with counsel for the United States originally sending a letter requesting the Plaintiff produce what had been determined to be a “Form AD-287, dated March 6, 2013. (Exhibit “A”). Plaintiff refused to produce the requested document by the date of June 3, 2016.

         5. After Plaintiff refused to produce the document, counsel for the United States sought to resolve the matter in a telephone conversation with Plaintiff on June 9, 2016. During the conversation, Plaintiff agreed to produce the document not later than June 10, 2016. However, the document was not produced on that date.

         6. Because the document was not produced on the agreed to date of June 10, 2016, counsel for the United States left several voice mail messages for Plaintiff to coordinate a date for a Telephonic Discovery Dispute Conference with the Honorable Judge Delaney per the standing Order.

         7. No response was made to United States’ counsel’s repeated voicemail messages.

         8. Per letter dated June 13, 2016, counsel for the United States advised Plaintiff that the efforts at informal resolution were unsuccessful, and the failure to respond to counsel’s voicemail message rendered any attempt to comply with the Court’s Telephonic Discovery Dispute procedures impractical. (Exhibit “B”).

         9. The Court entered a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order on April 14, 2016. (Docket No. 46). The Order provided that non-expert discovery be completed by June 15, 2016. However, due to Plaintiff’s refusal to answer questions about his “Form AD-287 dated March 6, 2103, ” and refusal to resolve the dispute in accordance with the Court’s Telephonic Discovery Dispute procedures (by refusing to respond to counsel for the United States’ phone calls), a brief extension of the discovery deadline for the limited purpose of completing the deposition of Plaintiff is warranted.

         10. Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that the Court extend the deadline for non-expert discovery to July 22, 2016, so that the United States may complete the deposition of Plaintiff on the limited topic of the “suggestion” as more specifically known as “Form AD-287, dated March 6, 2013.” The United States also requests that the Court order Plaintiff to provide dates that he is available before July 22, 2106, to allow for the completion of his deposition at the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.