(狀告哈佛) Docket Sheet of SFFA v. Harvard

The Court is very reluctant to allow SFFA the additional deposition that it now seeks. [ECF No. 344]. The discovery period has ended. Further, the potential deponent clearly qualifies as a party, and SFFA has used all of its allotted party depositions. The testimony sought seems largely duplicative of information already obtained and of marginal utility. The Court would be well within its bounds to decline the request for the above reasons as well as other reasons set forth by Harvard in its opposition [ECF No. 347]. That being said, the Court is equally reluctant to force this case to go forward without a fully developed factual record, particularly where there is only one additional deposition sought and where Harvard arguably should have disclosed the name of the deponent earlier. Out of an abundance of caution and trying to fairly balance the interests of the parties, the Court will allow the deposition to go forward under the following conditions: the deposition will be limited to two (2) hours and will take place at a location and time convenient for the deponent and Harvard, with SFFA to bear all the costs of the deposition, including reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred by Harvard. See San Francisco Health Plan v. McKesson Corp., 264 F.R.D. 20, 21 (D. Mass. 2010) (ordering party seeking additional depositions to pay associated costs because a balance must be struck between upholding the limitations of the rule and the reasons for those limitations on the one hand and counsel's judgment as to the needs of his or her case on the other). Alternatively, the parties can agree on a different format, including allowing the deponent to respond to written questions. (Montes, Mariliz) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

The Court is in receipt of letters from both parties. [ECF Nos. 355, 359]. Despite the fact that discovery had closed and SFFA had used all of its allotted party depositions, the Court allowed one additional deposition to go forward with the understanding that SFFA would bear all of the reasonable associated expenses, including Harvard's attorneys' fees. [ECF No. 351]. SFFA has not presented compelling grounds to reconsider that decision. The estimate provided by Harvard is not unreasonable on its face. SFFA may challenge the reasonableness of the fees and costs after they have accrued or forego the deposition, which again appears to seek information that is marginal, duplicative, and disproportionate.(Montes, Mariliz) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Upon review of the parties' joint status report filed on March 9, 2018 ECF No. 386 , the Court orders the following:

1. Dispositive motions shall be filed and briefed in accordance with the operative scheduling order ECF No. 363 .

2. Amicus briefs in support of a dispositive motion shall be filed by July 13, 2018. Amicus briefs in opposition to a dispositive motion shall be filed by August 17, 2018.

3. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the treatment of confidential materials to narrow the areas of dispute. The parties shall file letter briefs on the outstanding issues by March 30, 2018, and a hearing is scheduled for April 10, 2018 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 17 before Judge Allison D. Burroughs.

4. By the agreement of the parties, the Court will bifurcate the issues of liability and remedies. Remedies will be addressed after the disposition of dispositive motions and/or trial on liability.

5. The Court is considering scheduling trial for four weeks beginning the week of January 2, 2019. The parties may address the trial schedule at the hearing on April 10, 2018.

As discussed at the hearing held on April 10, 2018 ECF No. 402 , the Court orders the following:

1. The deadlines for amicus briefing on dispositive motions ECF No. 387 are amended as follows. Amicus briefs in support of a dispositive motion shall be filed by July 30, 2018. Amicus briefs in opposition to a dispositive motion shall be filed by August 30, 2018.

2. Prior to June 15, 2018, the parties shall meet and confer and propose a procedure for the Court to determine whether any dispositive motion briefing and/or exhibits filed under seal should remain sealed.