Smith v. Northrop Grumman, 5:13-cv-03942

Plaintiff Nicholas Smith sued Northrop Grumman under California’s FEHA; case removed to federal court.
Fact discovery cutoff set for September 18, 2015.
Plaintiff supplemented disclosures on August 20, 2015, identifying Dr. Wendy Landreville as a potential witness.
Northrop subpoenaed Dr. Landreville for deposition (served Sept. 2, 2015); deposition scheduled for Sept. 17, 2015, then cancelled after parties discussed a declaration in lieu of deposition due to scheduling.
Northrop sought to depose Dr. Landreville about two medical letters she wrote excusing Smith from jury duty; those letters had been submitted in support of Northrop’s summary judgment motion.
Northrop moved to extend the discovery cutoff to permit the deposition; Smith opposed, arguing jury-duty letters are irrelevant to FEHA claims. The court denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to modify the scheduling order to extend discovery to depose Dr. Landreville	Landreville's testimony about jury-duty letters is irrelevant to Smith's FEHA claims	Northrop acted diligently, subpoenaed and scheduled before cutoff; needs testimony about the letters and offered declaration as compromise	Denied — no good cause shown; testimony about jury-duty letters is irrelevant to FEHA claims

Hood v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (explaining Rule 16 good-cause inquiry and interplay with Rule 15)
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (diligence required to modify scheduling order under Rule 16)
Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (parties must participate in creating and adhere to Rule 16 scheduling orders)