Lonnie Pate v. Pacific Harbor Line, Inc.
5:21-cv-01300
| C.D. Cal. | Sep 21, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Lonnie Pate sued Pacific Harbor Line and Anacostia Rail Holdings for race-based wrongful termination; defendants later moved for Rule 11 sanctions alleging a 2014 grievance produced in the case was forged (the “Alleged Forgery”).
- The District Judge issued an Order to Show Cause and directed supplemental discovery narrowly focused on provenance/authentication of the Alleged Forgery and a deposition of non-party Jose Covarrubias; the Court set a supplemental discovery cutoff of September 1, 2023 (later extended to September 15, 2023).
- Defendants served broad subpoenas and 30(b)(6) notices (Julien Firm, HSRD, Uzoh Firm, Brewer, Mazzocchi, Pate); parties disputed scope, privilege, and metadata production; the Magistrate limited discovery to (1) receipt/review/authentication steps taken regarding the Alleged Forgery before production, and (2) receipt of Defendants’ version of the 2014 grievance (plus impeachment material).
- On September 14, 2023 defendants filed an ex parte application to extend the September 15 discovery/briefing deadline to September 21, 2023, citing noncompliance and six discrete unresolved discovery issues (metadata of “I Lonnie Pate.docx,” privilege logs, re-designation of 30(b)(6) witnesses, Pate’s production/search obligations, Brewer’s deposition, and Uzoh Firm’s subpoena).
- Plaintiff and former counsel Kristina Mazzocchi opposed the extension, arguing defendants delayed issuing subpoenas, sought overbroad/privilege-invading discovery, and were engaging in gamesmanship; Mazzocchi also sought sanctions for unfounded accusations against her.
- The Magistrate Judge denied the ex parte extension: found defendants would not be irreparably prejudiced, criticized defendants for delay and overbreadth, found supplemental discovery already provided (including transmission evidence and metadata of upload) sufficient for the limited inquiry, and raised concern about defense counsel contacting an unrepresented paralegal (Brewer).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant ex parte extension of supplemental discovery/briefing deadlines | Extension would reward dilatory tactics and enable more delay; not justified | Short 4‑day extension needed to finish depositions and finalize briefs due to noncompliance and discovery disputes | Denied — ex parte standards not met; no irreparable prejudice shown |
| Whether defendants will be irreparably prejudiced absent ex parte relief | No — existing discovery and testimony suffice for the limited inquiry into provenance | Yes — subpoenas not complied with, depositions incomplete, need more time to obtain metadata and testimony | No irreparable prejudice found; discovery already produced addresses key issues |
| Whether defendants are without fault in creating the perceived crisis (timeliness/excusable neglect) | Defendants delayed issuing subpoenas and intentionally sought overbroad discovery | Diligent pursuit of discovery; freeze on depositions impeded timing | Defendants share fault; many delays attributable to their timing and overbroad requests |
| Scope/propriety of discovery sought (metadata, third‑party subpoenas, Brewer contact, 30(b)(6) re‑designation) | Requests are overbroad, invade privilege, and disproportionate; metadata already explained; Uzoh/Allred subpoenas irrelevant | Need metadata, privilege logs, additional testimony, and access to nonparties to test provenance | Magistrate limited scope previously; found Julien/HSRD/Julien Firm productions sufficient; cautioned against privilege invasions and raised concerns about defense counsel contacting unrepresented paralegal; no extension to pursue broader discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (establishes the ex parte relief standard: irreparable prejudice and absence of moving party’s fault in creating the crisis)