Harris v. Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corporation, 4:20-cv-00360

Background

Plaintiff Zachary Harris sued Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corp. and Fluor Marine Propulsion, LLC for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the ADA, IHRA, and FMLA.
The lawsuit has experienced extensive discovery disputes and delays, prompting multiple motions and court interventions over several years.
Discovery deadlines had repeatedly been extended, often at both parties’ requests, with a particularly complex procedural backdrop when plaintiff sought further depositions.
Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order to block Plaintiff from deposing four fact witnesses and a 30(b)(6) corporate witness.
Plaintiff filed to extend the discovery deadline, citing unresolved discovery disputes and the timing of document production following a motion to compel.
The Court considered good cause and excusable neglect as prerequisites for granting post-deadline discovery extensions and addressed the proportionality and relevance of Plaintiff’s proposed 30(b)(6) deposition topics.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Extension for Four Fact Witness Depositions Post-Deadline	Needed documents and resolution of disputes before depositions	Extension requires good cause plus excusable neglect since deadline expired; defendants would be prejudiced	Good cause and excusable neglect found; extension for 60 days granted
30(b)(6) Topic 1: Internal Investigation Policies (2016-24)	Relevant for context of complaint investigations	Overly broad; policy production sufficient	Topic allowed for 2016–2024 timeframe
30(b)(6) Topic 3: All Investigations/Discipline (2016+)	Seek info on outcomes/disciplinary actions for all company policies	Overly broad; includes incomparable employees, creates broad unrelated discovery burden	Topic denied as too broad; protective order granted
30(b)(6) Topics 2 & 4: Sexual Harassment Complaints/Investigations	Requests info on comparable sexual harassment incidents	Timeframe too broad, duplicative of prior ordered discovery	Testimony allowed on incidents from 9/28/2013–9/27/2018, as previously ordered
30(b)(6) Topic 5: FMLA Leave/Accommodations (2016+)	Relevant to show comparators and treatment of medical leave	Already produced documents; request exceeds prior court-ordered disclosure	Testimony allowed for 2016–2021, aligning with previous scope limitations
30(b)(6) Topic 6: Complaint Behavior on Bus (2016+)	Policy and practice for riding bus, investigations into complaints	Previous production sufficient; further search unduly burdensome	Topic allowed for 2016–2021 timeframe
30(b)(6) Topic 7: "100% Returned to Work" Policy (2016+)	Policy/practice is disputed in record, plaintiff claims relevant	Policy never existed; plaintiff had previous opportunities to investigate	Topic allowed for 2016–2021; questions of policy existence are for deposition
30(b)(6) Topic 8: Discovery Methods/ESI Searches	Parties agreed to discuss search methodology, haven’t had deposition	Too late for deposition on this; earlier opportunities existed; already provided declarations	Testimony allowed subject to limitations in discovery plan

Key Cases Cited

Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (scope of liberal discovery in federal procedures)
Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (broad access to relevant discovery is essential to truth-seeking)
Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871 (post-deadline extensions require excusable neglect)
Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 (liberal construction of rules for merits-based case decisions)
Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681 (broad discretion in controlling discovery scope)
Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (similarly-situated employee comparator standard)
Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151 (similarly-situated comparator must be analyzed in context)