Zhang v. Sabrina USA Inc.

Background

Yu Zhang asked the court to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of taking the defendants’ depositions. The court had previously denied that request without prejudice and ordered Zhang to explain his efforts to schedule the depositions between June 17, 2019, and April 2, 2020. The court also directed Zhang’s counsel to identify the trials that allegedly prevented depositions in January and February 2020.

Discovery closed on March 24, 2020. Zhang had initially scheduled the defendants’ depositions for July 11, 2019, but the date was canceled because defense counsel was unavailable. The court noted that Zhang’s counsel did not explain why the depositions were not rescheduled during the following eight months. Zhang’s counsel said depositions were not pursued during a pending motion for conditional collective certification because of anticipated additional plaintiffs and a desire to conduct one deposition later. The court found that explanation unpersuasive, particularly because the depositions had originally been scheduled before that motion was filed.

Court’s Analysis

The court emphasized that the certification motion was denied on December 10, 2019, and that Zhang did not seek a stay of discovery. Zhang also did not try to schedule the depositions or request a discovery extension between December 10, 2019, and March 24, 2020.

The court reviewed counsel’s explanations about other trials. It found that two trials scheduled for January had been adjourned within the first ten days of that month, and that a trial scheduled for early February settled in late January. The court also rejected the argument that counsel’s busy docket prevented diligent efforts to schedule depositions. The court recognized that the pandemic might have prevented a deposition noticed for late February or March 2020, but stated that the pandemic did not excuse the failure to pursue discovery during the preceding seven months.

The court also noted conflicting statements from attorneys John Troy and Aaron Schweitzer about which counsel had responsibility for trials and other matters. The court stated that it was unclear whether they planned to attend the same or different trials and noted that the firm’s website listed two other attorneys who might have shared responsibilities.

Disposition

The court denied Zhang’s request to reopen discovery. It found that no timely extension request had been made and that Zhang had not shown “good cause”—a legally sufficient reason—for extending discovery beyond the ten months originally provided. The court relied on the principle that modifying a scheduling order generally requires a showing of good cause based on the moving party’s diligence. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang signed the order.