Kostov v. Maricopa County Special Health Care District
2:23-cv-00613
| D. Ariz. | Oct 1, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Robert Kostov filed suit against Maricopa County Special Health Care District (Valleywise) alleging claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- The case involves numerous opt-in plaintiffs, with court-ordered discovery deadlines and procedures governing depositions and document production.
- Discovery in the case has been contentious, marked by last-minute deposition cancellations, disputes over attendance at depositions, and compliance with court orders.
- Valleywise moved to extend the discovery deadline after many opt-in plaintiffs failed to appear for depositions, while Kostov alleged Valleywise did not diligently pursue discovery and engaged in intimidating practices.
- The court partially granted Valleywise’s request, extending deadlines and imposing restrictions on who may attend plaintiff depositions to prevent intimidation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extension of discovery and dispositive motion deadlines | Valleywise delayed and failed to diligently pursue discovery | High rate of plaintiff deposition cancellations justified extension | Granted in part: Deadlines extended by 60 days |
| Attendance of supervisors at plaintiff depositions | Supervisor presence intimidates deponents | Not specifically addressed | Supervisors may not attend depositions of those they supervise |
| Production of documents in advance of depositions | Valleywise not providing records five business days before depositions | Not specifically addressed | Valleywise must provide documents five days in advance or deposition may not proceed |
| Compliance with four-hour deposition limit and 30(b)(6) rule | Valleywise may not honor agreed time limits/refuses 30(b)(6) representative | Not specifically addressed | Parties to adhere to four-hour limit; Valleywise must designate Rule 30(b)(6) witness |
Key Cases Cited
- American Unites for Kids v. Rousseau, 985 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2021) (discusses district court's broad discretion in remedying litigation misconduct)
- Adams v. Shell Oil Co., 136 F.R.D. 615 (E.D. La. 1991) (exclusion of supervisor from deposition due to possible intimidation)