Effinger v. Ancient Organics LLC

Background

The case is a proposed class action. At a December 12, 2023 case-management conference, the court set April 1, 2024, as the close of fact discovery for class certification. After the plaintiffs requested more time and the parties delayed discovery to attend mediation, the court moved that deadline to July 10, 2024.

The defendant then filed a motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions against the plaintiffs’ counsel. The plaintiffs filed a separate motion seeking more time for expert disclosures and for their class-certification motion.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Depositions

The defendant sought to require Kelly Effinger and Keefe Stevernu to attend depositions. A party may be required to attend a deposition after receiving proper notice. The court found that the defendant’s deposition notices were not properly served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b). The materials had been left in places such as door handles, a common lobby table, and under office doors. The court also noted that defense counsel had not coordinated with plaintiffs’ counsel before issuing the notices and had not contacted counsel about the missed depositions until the following week.

Because the defendant did not show that the plaintiffs received proper notice, the court denied this portion of the motion to compel.

Stevernu’s Interrogatory Responses

The defendant also sought answers to interrogatories served on Stevernu. The court found that Stevernu had not responded. The plaintiffs argued that their counsel had not been in contact with Stevernu for several months and did not intend to keep him in the case. The court rejected that basis for withholding discovery, explaining that Stevernu remained a named plaintiff and class representative. The court held that, while he remained in the case, the defendant was entitled to discovery from him.

The court granted the motion to compel as to Stevernu’s interrogatory responses and ordered him to provide them within 14 days. The court also stated that objections to the interrogatories had been waived because they were not made within the required time.

Sanctions

The defendant included a request for sanctions in its motion to compel. Because the local rule requires sanctions motions to be filed separately, the court denied the sanctions motion as procedurally defective.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Deadlines

The plaintiffs sought additional time for expert disclosures and for their class-certification motion. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), changing a scheduling order requires good cause and the judge’s consent. The court explained that the main focus is the diligence of the party seeking the change.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause. It concluded that their arguments about the parties’ conduct in discovery did not satisfy the applicable standard. The court also noted that the plaintiffs did not propose new deadlines and had already received a prior extension.

The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion to extend the deadlines.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to compel further discovery responses. It denied the defendant’s motion for sanctions and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to change the deadlines.