Sepulveda v. Alomari, 3:23-cv-01443

Plaintiff Richard Sepulveda, who uses a walker due to disabilities, sued Mi Ranchito Market and its owners under the ADA and related state laws after encountering alleged accessibility barriers during visits.
Sepulveda moved from Oakland (near the market) to Manteca during litigation but stated he frequently returns to Oakland for medical and personal reasons.
Both parties filed motions for summary judgment; the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion as to standing, finding his ties to Oakland sufficient to show intent to return, but reserved on the actual ADA and state law claims.
Defendants sought to reopen Sepulveda's deposition, arguing his summary judgment declaration contradicted previous deposition testimony in a related case and presented new facts.
Fact discovery had closed, and the case was scheduled for trial, prompting expedited briefing on Defendants’ motion to reopen the deposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reopening of Plaintiff’s Deposition	No basis; defendants never deposed him in this case and had ample time to seek further discovery	New facts and conflicting testimony in declaration justify re-opening	Denied; no showing of prior deposition, and untimely
Contradictory Testimony	Testimony was not inconsistent re: Oakland visits vs grocery shopping	Declaration contradicts earlier deposition about Oakland visits	Not a sufficient ground for reopening--credibility can be addressed at trial
Good Cause to Reopen Discovery	No good cause; Defendants knew of relevant facts long before and missed their opportunity	Discovery warranted by new facts affecting standing	No good cause shown under Rule 16(b); optional discovery tools existed earlier
Appropriate Remedy for Inconsistencies	Use at trial for impeachment, not re-deposition	Only additional deposition will allow exploration of discrepancies	Impeachment at trial is sufficient direction; new deposition unnecessary

Graebner v. James River Corp., 130 F.R.D. 440 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (reopened depositions disfavored absent new evidence or new theories)
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (good cause required to modify scheduling orders)