Le v. Huynh

Background

The court addressed the plaintiff’s request to extend the January 15, 2024 cutoff for non-expert discovery and several discovery disputes. The plaintiff had served discovery requests on defendant Trinh Ngoc Huynh and later served deposition notices for Huynh and Huynh Dining that included requests for documents. Huynh was deposed on January 12, 2024, and Thi Tran for Huynh Dining was deposed on January 17, 2024.

The plaintiff argued that defendants had not produced important documents, had not provided a full seven hours of deposition testimony, had refused to answer questions, and had engaged in witness coaching and other improper conduct. The plaintiff also requested permission to seek sanctions for what he described as a willful refusal to provide discovery and false deposition testimony. Defendants opposed extending discovery, arguing that the plaintiff had not diligently pursued discovery and had not followed applicable rules and deadlines.

Request to Extend Fact Discovery

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court found no good cause to extend the fact-discovery cutoff. It stated that the parties had sufficient time to issue the necessary discovery requests and noted that the plaintiff had not cited authority permitting the initial ex parte filing.

The court therefore denied the plaintiff’s ex parte application to extend fact discovery. It also denied the plaintiff’s alternative request for leave to file a sanctions motion, finding no basis for sanctions on the facts presented. The court noted that a motion concerning fact discovery generally could not be filed more than seven days after the discovery cutoff under the applicable local rule, and the plaintiff had not filed a motion to compel within that period.

Discovery Letter Brief

The court granted in part and denied in part the discovery letter brief. It agreed with defendants that the document requests included in the December 29, 2023 deposition notices were not timely noticed. However, under the circumstances, it ordered defendants to respond to those document requests and to comply with discovery requests issued before the close of fact discovery.

The court ruled on the specific disputes as follows:

- Additional deposition time: Denied. The court found no basis for more deposition time and stated that the depositions appeared to have lasted seven hours each, excluding lunch breaks. It allowed the plaintiff to notify the court if he disputed defendants’ stated deposition times. - Lease agreement: Granted as to the requested production. The plaintiff had requested documents concerning the lease of defendants’ restaurant, and the court ordered defendants to produce the lease. - Wholesaler information: Denied. The information had been sought during the depositions but was not included in the requests for production. - Most popular dishes: Denied. This information also had not been sought in the requests for production. - Business records: Granted to the extent the records had been requested before the close of fact discovery. Defendants were ordered to produce all responsive, nonprivileged documents. - Employee names and agreements: Granted only to the extent the plaintiff had requested this information in interrogatories or requests for production. Defendants were ordered to produce all responsive, nonprivileged information.

Conclusion and Effect

The court denied the request to extend the close of fact discovery but required the parties to fully comply with discovery requests issued before that deadline, including the requests included in the deposition notices. If disputes remained about documents requested before the cutoff, the parties were ordered to meet and confer under the local rules and submit any remaining disputes in a joint discovery letter. The court also encouraged settlement to avoid the expense and time of trial.

The order concerns the plaintiff’s and defendants’ discovery obligations and does not decide the merits of the underlying case.