Johnson v. Knight Transportation, Inc.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 9 — EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 SORYA JOHNSON, Case No.: 1:18-CV-01674- JLT 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AFTER TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE 13 v. 14 KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. — 16 — 17 The Court held an informal conference on a discovery dispute. (Doc. 19) The parties have 18 several disputes. Most of the dispute related to the plaintiff’s responses to discovery, the Court did 19 not address in detail because the parties have not completed their meet and confer efforts in this 20 regard1. 21 First, at the conference, the Court noted that the holdings of Diaz v. Carcamo, 51 Cal.4th 22 1148 (2011) and Armenta v. Churchill, 42 Cal.2d 448 (1954) coupled with Moore v. Superway 23 Logistics, Inc., 2019 WL 2285392 (May 29, 2019), seem to dispose of the request set forth in 24 plaintiff’s request for production of documents number 9, because Knight admits vicarious liability 25 for the acts of its employee, Mr. Gossard, assuming liability is imposed on him. Moreover, the — 26 — — 27 — 1 That being said, it appears the plaintiff has not produced the documents her counsel indicated on August 1, 2019 in 28 an email between counsel, that she would produce. Likewise, the parties are reminded of their ongoing obligation to 1 request appears to be overbroad in that it seeks private information that has no bearing on the 2 issues at hand. The suggestion that documents related to other accidents or other bad acts bear on 3 whether the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages, is irrelevant because the plaintiff has not 4 sought punitive damages in this case. 5 Second, the Court indicated it appears that Dillenbeck v. City of Los Angeles, 69 Cal.2d 6 472 (1968) may support the plaintiff’s request for relevant portions of Knight’s policy manual as 7 sought by request number 10. The Court agrees that only the portions of the policy manual that 8 could establish a duty of care on Mr. Gossard greater that that imposed by law are at issue. 9 Third, the Court expressed concerns that Knight has not produced all relevant portions of 10 the dash cam video related to the collision at issue. To the extent the video exists, Knight should 11 gather and produce all video recordings responsive to the request, meaning video beginning 20 12 minutes before the collision through 20 minutes after. 13 Fourth, no later than August 23, 2019, counsel for the defendants SHALL provide available 14 dates for the depositions of Mr. Gossard and the entity’s designee under Fed.R.Civ.P.30(b)(6). If 15 counsel cannot agree on dates for these depositions by August 30, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel 16 SHALL immediately contact the Court to arrange a telephonic conference with counsel at which 17 the Court will select the dates and times for these depositions. 18 Finally, the dispute over whether the defense has produced information related to insurance 19 coverage has resolved. 20 Because the Court was not able to achieve agreement on any topic, the Court ORDERS: 21 1. As to the first three topics, any motion to compel or motion for protective order, 22 may be filed no later than August 30, 2019. Any such motion SHALL proceed according to the 23 requirements of Local Rule 251(c). — 24 — 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: August 16, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 28 —