United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
DISCOVERY ORDER RE: ECF NO. 36
BEELER United States Magistrate Judge.
parties' latest case-management statement at ECF No. 36
contains several discovery disputes. The court discussed and
largely resolved them at the case-management conference held
on June 15, 2017. This order memorializes the court's
plaintiff worked as an installation technician for the
defendant Comcast. He was injured and allegedly disabled on
May 1, 2014; he reported this injury to Comcast a few days
later. He took leave, first under the Family Medical Leave
Act and then, by October 2014, straight medical
leave. He apparently knew by December 2014 that
he could not resume his job. In any event, by January 22,
2015, the plaintiff's treating physician told him that
his medical restriction (apparently a lifting restriction)
was permanent. By February 2015, Comcast told him that he
had a further 60 days of leave, and if he did not find a
position at Comcast in that period - with or without
accommodation - Comcast would administratively terminate
Ultimately Comcast fired him on April 22, 2015. The plaintiff
accuses Comcast of discriminating against him because of his
disability, mainly by not reassigning him to another
case-management statement, the plaintiff identifies the
following areas for discovery
• Rule 30(b)(6). The plaintiff wants to
depose a 30(b)(6) witness on: (1) job-application procedures;
(2) jobs that became available and were filled; and (3)
Comcast's antidiscrimination “policies and
procedures.” For all these topics, the plaintiff wants
to ask about, not only this defendant, but “ any . . .
related entities” in Northern California and for the
dates from July 8, 2014 to the present.”
• Percipient witnesses. The plaintiff
“may” want to depose two percipient witnesses
before the June 30, 2017 fact-discovery cutoff.
• Third-party information. Information
identifying non-litigant, “disabled” Comcast
employees and how Comcast accommodated them or failed to.
Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
reasons discussed at the hearing, the appropriate time period
is January 1, 2015 (approximately when the plaintiff knew
that he could not return to his job without restriction)
through April 2015 (his termination date). Again for the
reasons discussed at the hearing, the court also limits the
entities to Comcast Cable.
is overbroad to the extent that it includes all open jobs.
The litigation is defined by jobs that the plaintiff could
take. The defendant's spreadsheet (see ECF No.
36-2 at 3) seems to define the appropriate landscape of jobs,
and its Transfer Policy for Disabled Employees seems to be
the relevant policy. The same approach narrows Topics 2 and
also objects to the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the ground
that a fact witness already covered this territory. The court
will allow the Rule 30(b)(6) witness.
Depositions of Ann Righetti and Dena Galvan
court extended discovery until June 30 to permit the Rule
30(b)(6) deposition. The parties agreed to the deposition of
Steve LeBlanc, which is fine, but the plaintiff has not said
unequivocally that he wants to depose Ann Righetti and Dena
Galvan. In any event, but for the Rule 30(b)(6) and LeBlanc
depositions, fact discovery is closed.