Mofrad v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-01899
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Mofrad v. United Parcel Service, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied Mofrad’s motion to compel Henry Apodaca’s deposition as untimely.
Cyrus Mofrad’s effort to obtain Henry Apodaca’s deposition testimony was denied; the order also concerned United Parcel Service, Inc.’s opposition to that deposition.
What happened
Mofrad v. United Parcel Service, Inc. concerned Cyrus Mofrad’s request to require Henry Apodaca to attend a deposition. Mofrad had noticed the deposition, but Apodaca did not appear after the parties failed to agree on a date.
The court said discovery on Mofrad’s harassment claims ended March 21, 2024, and Mofrad did not file his motion within the required seven-day period. The court also rejected Mofrad’s argument that a pending request to change the schedule excused the deadline and found he had not shown the required good cause.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied the motion to compel Apodaca’s deposition. The order did not decide the underlying harassment claims.
The detailed version
- Mofrad v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-01899
- Martinez-Olguin
- May 2, 2024
Background
Cyrus Mofrad moved to compel Henry Apodaca’s attendance at a deposition under a subpoena. Mofrad noticed the deposition for March 19, 2024, two days before the fact-discovery deadline. He served the notice on United Parcel Service, Inc.’s counsel on March 13. UPS’s counsel said that counsel would represent Apodaca at the deposition and that neither counsel nor Apodaca was available on the selected date. The parties did not agree on another date, and Apodaca did not appear.
The opinion states that Apodaca’s testimony was limited to Mofrad’s preexisting harassment claims. UPS represented that Apodaca knew nothing about Mofrad’s termination because UPS had terminated Apodaca’s employment nearly 18 months before Mofrad’s termination. Mofrad did not dispute that his anticipated testimony was limited to the harassment claims.
Reasoning
Fact discovery for Mofrad’s harassment claims closed on March 21, 2024. Under Civil Local Rule 37-3, Mofrad had seven days to file a motion to compel. He filed this motion on April 4, 2024, after that period had expired.
Mofrad argued that he did not file within the seven-day period because his motion to amend the case schedule was still pending, and granting that motion could have eliminated the need for a motion to compel. The court rejected that argument. It emphasized that the existing schedule remained in effect until the court ruled on the motion to amend, and that a pending motion did not change the existing scheduling order.
Mofrad also argued that good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) supported relief from the deadlines. The court found that he had not shown the required diligence. It cited the record’s description of counsel’s failure to serve written discovery, delay in scheduling Mofrad’s deposition, and efforts to schedule depositions shortly before the discovery cutoff.
Disposition
The court denied the Motion to Compel Attendance of Henry Apodaca at Deposition Pursuant to Subpoena. The hearing scheduled for May 9, 2024, was vacated. The order addressed the timing and diligence supporting the discovery motion, not the merits of Mofrad’s underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.