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.

Talavera v. Sun Maid Growers of California

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 7, 2017

JONATHON TALAVERA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v.
SUN MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.

          ORDER RE INFORMAL DISCOVERY DISPUTE (ECF No. 41)

         I.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Jonathon Talavera filed this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals alleging Defendant Sun-Maid Growers violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state law by failing to pay employees for all pre-shift work activities and failing to provide “legally compliant” meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff was employed by a temporary agency and was placed at Defendant's facility to perform temporary work for eighteen days in August and September of 2014. On June 16, 2016, a scheduling order in this action issued bifurcating discovery and setting the dates for class certification discovery. On February 14, 2017, an order issued granting Plaintiff's request to extend the time to conduct precertification discovery and all non-expert precertification discovery was to be completed by April 10, 2017.

         On Friday, March 31, 2017, at 3:45 p.m., Plaintiff's counsel e-mailed defense counsel that additional depositions were going to be noticed. On this same date at 4:35 p.m., Defendant was served with a notice of deposition for George Chavez, Sum-Maid Production Supervisor. On Monday, April 3, 2017, Plaintiff served deposition notices for two payroll department employees, Deborah Brown and Paula Caro-Jamarillo. All depositions were scheduled for April 10, 2017.

         Defendant objects to the deposition notices on the grounds that Plaintiff's case has been pending for over 96 weeks and he waited until a week before the discovery deadline to serve the deposition notices. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has been aware of these individuals and there is no excuse for deposing them on such short notice. Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to provide reasonable notice for these depositions. Defendant seeks a protective order barring the three depositions.

         Plaintiff counters that he has provided reasonable notice for the depositions. Plaintiff argues that while defense counsel stated that she is not available for depositions on April 10, 2017, she is one of three attorneys in the firm. Plaintiff also contends that he has offered to take the depositions on an alternate date without seeking an extension of the discovery deadline. Plaintiff contends that he is just now seeking to take the depositions because of the sample received after the Court granted his motion to compel. Plaintiff received the samples on February 23, 2017 and did not complete his analysis of the records until March 28, 2017.

         II.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs depositions. Rule 30 provides that a party may depose any person without leave of the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(1). To depose a person the deposing party must give reasonable notice of a deposition, Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(1), and courts generally find that one week to ten days' notice is reasonable. Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., No. 11-0069-WQH (WVG), 2014 WL 1670094, at *2 (S.D. Cal. April 28, 2014); Charm Floral v. Wald Imports, Ltd., No. C10-1550-RSM, 2012 WL 424581, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2012); Lam v. City and County of San Francisco, No. C 08-04702 PJH (LB), 2011 WL 4915812, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2011).

         Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:

A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending--or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition. . . . The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.

         III.

...


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.