United States District Court, E.D. California
JONATHON TALAVERA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
SUN MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.
ORDER RE INFORMAL DISCOVERY DISPUTE (ECF No.
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,
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.
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
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,
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.
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.