Casillas v. Bayer Corporation

Background

The court addressed several motions seeking changes to the case schedule and a joint discovery letter brief. The opinion states that the matters were fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument, so the court vacated related hearings.

Bayer Healthcare LLC’s late-deposition motion

Bayer Healthcare LLC, identified as Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Bayer Healthcare LLC, moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and local rules for permission to take a fact-witness deposition after the June 28, 2024 fact-discovery cutoff. Bayer sought to depose Noel Curry, the lead investigator for the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health concerning the incident, or an appropriate employee in Curry’s place.

The court applied Rule 16(b)(4)’s good-cause standard, which primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking to change the schedule. Bayer had initially scheduled Curry’s deposition within the discovery period and described efforts beginning May 10, 2024, to secure his appearance. The court found that Bayer’s diligent efforts and Curry’s unavailability established good cause.

Plaintiffs sought limits on questioning about Curry’s views concerning the application of occupational-safety standards and objected to allowing another California Division of Occupational Safety and Health employee to testify in Curry’s place. The court declined to impose either limitation. It stated that discovery information need not be admissible at trial and that Plaintiffs’ objections were premature. The court therefore GRANTED Bayer’s motion. The conclusion ordered that Bayer may take Curry’s deposition or, if he remains unavailable, the deposition of an appropriate California Division of Occupational Safety and Health employee. Bayer must notice and complete the deposition within 42 days from the order’s date.

Anderson’s motion to extend deadlines

Linoleum Sales Co. doing business as Anderson Commercial Flooring moved for administrative relief to extend expert-discovery and other case deadlines. Anderson argued that Bayer produced 3,554 pages of documents on the last day of fact discovery and that more time was needed to review them for expert-witness disclosures. Anderson did not propose new dates or specify the length of the requested extensions.

The court held that Anderson’s motion did not show the required diligence in retaining and preparing experts or explain how the document production prevented compliance with the July 18, 2024 expert-disclosure deadline. The court also found that Anderson had not shown prejudice, including because supplemental disclosures could be made before expert discovery closed. The court DENIED Anderson’s motion to extend expert discovery and other case deadlines and, in the conclusion, DENIED Anderson’s motion to modify the case schedule for lack of good cause.

Discovery disputes

The joint discovery letter brief addressed three issues.

First, Plaintiffs objected to requests for admission concerning the authentication of documents, including an OSHA statement and phone records. Because the parties had not submitted the relevant requests and responses, the court declined to rule specifically on those objections at that time. It ordered Plaintiffs to provide a privilege log as required by the court’s standing order. The court stated that Plaintiffs had no apparent basis to withhold communications between Plaintiffs’ counsel and the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health concerning the fire and investigation underlying Plaintiffs’ injuries, while clarifying that the order did not concern counsel’s communications with that agency outside this case.

Second, Bayer sought communications between Plaintiffs’ counsel and David Mathie from before Mathie’s May 24, 2024 deposition. The court stated that Mathie had not been retained as an expert at the time of the deposition and held that Bayer was entitled to review all nonprivileged communications with him. Plaintiffs’ counsel was ordered to produce the requested records and provide a privilege log for any withheld materials.

Third, Bayer sought communications between Plaintiffs’ counsel and counsel for Anderson Commercial Flooring relating to Plaintiff Saul Sanchez. Plaintiffs asserted that the common-interest doctrine protected the communications. The court did not decide whether that doctrine applied because no privilege log had been provided. It GRANTED Bayer’s requested relief and ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel to serve a privilege log for communications covered by the asserted doctrine and produce responsive documents for communications not covered by that assertion.

Final orders

The court ordered Plaintiffs to produce the required materials within three days of the order. Any motion to compel or challenge to a privilege assertion had to be filed within seven days after Bayer received the privilege log. The opinion does not state that the court resolved the underlying claims in the case.