Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilkins v. Brandman University

United States District Court, D. Oregon

June 27, 2019

DEMETRYE WILKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDMAN UNIVERSITY, Defendants.

          BETH ANN CREIGHTON LAURA KOISTINEN Creighton & Rose, PC Powers Building Attorneys for Plaintiff

          J. MICHAEL PORTER MATTHEW A. TRIPP Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP Attorneys for Defendant

          OPINION AND ORDER

          ANNA J. BROWN, UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion (#61) to Compel. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.

         BACKGROUND

         On July 14, 2017, Plaintiff Demetrye Wilkins filed a Complaint against Brandman University, his former employer, alleging claims for

(1) Race discrimination relating to events that occurred from October 2014 to February 2016 in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.030(1)(a) and (b) and
(2) Retaliation against Plaintiff for opposing discrimination relating to events that occurred from October 2014 to February 2016 in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3; Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.030(f); and Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.199.

         On April 9, 2018, Magistrate Judge John Jelderks granted Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Discovery and PTO Deadlines and directed discovery to be completed by July 12, 2018.

         On July 26, 2018, Magistrate Judge John Jelderks granted Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Discovery and PTO Deadlines and directed discovery to be completed by September 10, 2018.

         On September 28, 2018, two weeks after the close of discovery, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay Case Deadlines while they conducted a settlement conference. Magistrate Judge Jelderks granted the Motion on October 1, 2018.

         On January 16, 2019, the parties engaged in a settlement conference, but they did not settle the matter.

         On February 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Discovery and PTO Deadlines in which he sought an extension of time to reopen discovery to depose two witnesses (Phillip Doolittle and Dana Gelfand) and to serve an unspecified number of document requests. Defendant opposed Plaintiff's Motion on the ground that the Court has already given Plaintiff “ample opportunity to obtain the information [he seeks] by discovery in [this] action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(2). Specifically, Defendant noted discovery had been open for 376 days during which time Plaintiff took nine depositions and received 1, 412 pages of documents from Defendant. In addition, Defendant asserted Plaintiff had more than enough time to depose Gelfand and to seek additional documents because Gelfand was identified as a witness with “[k]nowlege of plaintiff's conduct, performance, and work environment and the decisions to discipline plaintiff” in Defendant's initial disclosures, which were served on Plaintiff on October 25, 2017. Plaintiff did not explain why he could not have deposed Gelfand in the 320 days between his receipt of initial disclosures and the September 10, 2018, discovery deadline. Defendant conceded it did not identify Doolittle in its initial disclosures, but explained Doolittle is Defendant's Executive Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer. Doolittle was not Plaintiff's supervisor or manager, and the only evidence concerning his involvement in the events underlying this case is that he was informed of and concurred with the pending termination of Plaintiff's employment. Nevertheless, Plaintiff learned about Doolittle's limited involvement in the events at issue during depositions that took place on June 13 and 14, 2018. Plaintiff, however, failed to depose Doolittle in the 88 days between depositions and the September 10, 2018, discovery deadline. Finally, Defendant noted Plaintiff knew about the additional documents that he eventually sought in his Motion and was aware of both witnesses by July 26, 2018, at the latest as established by the fact that Plaintiff's counsel referred to them in conversation with defense counsel at that time.

         On February 20, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jelderks denied Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery, but he granted Plaintiff leave to depose Doolittle and Gelfand no later than April 15, 2019.

         On March 4, 2019, the matter was reassigned to this judicial officer.

         On April 9, 2019, the Court held a Rule 16 Conference and set a deadline of May ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.