KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Presently pending before the court is defendants Marilyn Patacsil and Ernesto Patacsil's ex parte application for a protective order concerning the deposition of defendants' person most knowledgeable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) (who defendants represent would be defendant Marilyn Patacsil). (ECF No. 24.) In the ex parte application, filed on March 24, 2014, defendants request that the deposition, presently noticed for March 28, 2014, be continued for 90 days in light of Ms. Patacsil's medical condition, and that it be limited in several other ways. (
The operative November 21, 2012 pretrial scheduling order in this matter provides, in part, that:
(ECF No. 13 at 3.) The court's Local Rules require discovery motions to be noticed for a hearing on an appropriate calendar at least 21 days from the date of filing and service, and outline specific briefing requirements pertaining to such motions, such as the filing of a joint statement regarding the discovery disagreement.
Defendants have not shown good cause for an order permitting their application to be heard on shortened time. Local Rule 144 provides, in part, that:
E.D. Cal. L.R. 144(e).
According to defendants, the notice of deposition for the March 28, 2014 deposition was served on March 13, 2014, and on March 14, 2014, defendants' counsel received a faxed letter from Ms. Patacsil's physician, Dr. Aziz Kamali, concerning Ms. Patacsil's medical condition and recommending that she "not deal with any business related matters for at least three months." (ECF No. 24 at 4, 15.)
Moreover, defendants' own application indicates that Ms. Patacsil's deposition was previously cancelled and/or delayed in the early part of 2013 as a result of Ms. Patacsil's alleged medical and emotional condition. (ECF No. 24 at 3.) Although the court does not have before it documentation concerning the 2013 period, Dr. Kamali's March 2014 letter, in its unredacted form, contains fairly cursory references to various generalized medical and mental health conditions, without providing any significant support or reasoning for such a lengthy period of supposed inability to deal with any legal or business matters. Given the impending discovery completion deadline of April 15, 2014, it is not surprising that plaintiffs apparently objected to continuing the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition by 90 days. Simply put, that continuance is not permissible unless the pretrial scheduling order is also modified.
Therefore, the court denies defendants' application, both because it is untimely pursuant to Local Rule 251 (without a showing of good cause for an order shortening time), and because the relief requested cannot be awarded in any event without modifying the scheduling order.
Defendants are encouraged to meet and confer with plaintiffs so as to conduct the deposition as noticed and/or prior to the discovery completion deadline, with any feasible reasonable accommodations for Ms. Patacsil's medical conditions. By way of example only, the parties may consider allowing the deposition to be conducted over multiple days for shorter sessions. Alternatively, the parties may jointly file, or defendants may unilaterally file, a motion with the assigned district judge to modify the present scheduling order and discovery completion deadline.
Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: