Cross v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority

Background

Shannon Cross sued her former employer, Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA), alleging discrimination, retaliation, and harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Cross alleged that she was harassed and discriminated against because she wore a hijab and that CCCTA terminated her after she complained to Human Resources. CCCTA denied the allegations and contended that it terminated Cross for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, including sideswiping a bicyclist, running 30 stop signs and red lights over two hours, failing to stop at Bay Area Rapid Transit crosswalks, and using her cellphone while seated in the bus operator’s seat.

The court’s operative scheduling order set fact discovery to close on December 21, 2023, expert discovery to close on April 4, 2024, and the deadline for dispositive motions to be May 16, 2024. CCCTA filed a motion for summary judgment on April 11, 2024. After receiving an extension to respond, Cross moved on May 17, 2024, to modify the scheduling order, delay expert disclosures and related discovery, postpone the summary-judgment hearing until September 12, 2024, and continue the trial until April 14, 2025.

The Requested Additional Discovery

Cross sought to depose CCCTA’s human-resources manager, complete CCCTA’s deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), obtain documents responsive to a January 10, 2023 production request, and obtain expert declarations.

The court found that Cross had not diligently pursued the requested discovery. She had noticed, canceled, and failed to attend scheduled depositions of the human-resources manager, then allowed the fact-discovery deadline to pass without rescheduling the deposition. Although the parties had scheduled a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Cross did not notice a second day or ask the court for permission to complete it until shortly before her summary-judgment response was due. The court also found that Cross did not challenge CCCTA’s document production or seek an order requiring additional production before the fact-discovery deadline.

The court further found that Cross had not explained why expert declarations could not have been obtained earlier, given the years available for discovery. It rejected Cross’s reliance on settlement efforts, her desire to limit costs, an asserted but undocumented agreement to defer expert discovery, and counsel’s scheduling conflicts as sufficient reasons for the delay.

Legal Standards and Ruling

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be modified only for good cause, with the judge’s consent. The main consideration is the diligence of the party seeking the change. Under Rule 56(d), a party opposing summary judgment may ask the court to defer or deny consideration of the motion, allow additional time for discovery, or issue another appropriate order when the party identifies specific facts it cannot yet present. The court stated that diligence is required under both rules.

Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Cross’s motion to modify the scheduling order. The court did not decide CCCTA’s summary-judgment motion. Instead, it gave Cross seven days from the order’s date to respond, gave CCCTA seven days thereafter to file a reply, and stated that the motion would be considered submitted when the reply was due. The court also stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one.