Hill v. Workday, Inc.
- Kang
- 3:23-cv-06558
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hill v. Workday, Inc., Judge Kang granted in part and denied in part Hill’s request, staying discovery deadlines through June 27, 2025.
Plaintiff Anthony C. Hill and the defendants, including Workday, Inc., because the order changes the schedule for all discovery deadlines.
What happened
In Hill v. Workday, Inc., Anthony C. Hill asked the court to clarify the case’s procedural status and pause discovery deadlines. Hill had recently begun representing himself after transitioning from counsel.
Hill asked to extend the discovery pause through August 12, 2025. Workday argued that delaying discovery would prejudice it, although the court noted that both sides had chosen to defer discovery while other filings were being resolved.
Judge Peter H. Kang granted in part and denied in part Hill’s request. The court stayed all discovery deadlines through June 27, 2025, but did not extend the stay through August 12. Hill was expected to seek new counsel and, if no new counsel appeared by June 27, proceed without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Hill v. Workday, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-06558
- Kang
- May 29, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Anthony C. Hill moved to clarify the procedural status of the case and to stay discovery deadlines. The court decided the motion without oral argument.
Hill had recently transitioned to representing himself, but the court stated that he had been on notice of the need to obtain substitute counsel. Hill requested that the discovery stay continue through August 12, 2025, tying the request to the continued Initial Case Management Conference. The court found that Hill had not shown sufficient justification for that length of extension because it would require a major revision to the existing case schedule.
Workday, Inc. argued that delaying discovery would prejudice it. The court noted, however, that Workday had made its requests only recently despite knowing the fact-discovery deadline. The court also stated that both parties had contributed to the risk of prejudice by choosing to defer discovery until the pleadings were resolved, without direction from the court.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part Hill’s expedited request. It stayed all discovery deadlines through June 27, 2025, but did not grant the requested stay through August 12, 2025.
During the stay, Hill was expected to make more than minimal efforts to secure new counsel. If substitute counsel had not appeared by June 27, 2025, Hill was required to be prepared to proceed without a lawyer, including participating in discovery and complying with court orders and deadlines. The court also provided information about resources for people representing themselves in federal court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.