Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC v. T.G.S. Transportation, Inc.

BRIEF Letter Brief Re Discovery Dispute

E.D. Cal.March 15, 2019

015130.00002 - 220830.1 March 15, 2019 VIA ECF FILING Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe United States District Court Eastern District of California – Fresno Division Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse 2500 Tulare Street Courtroom 8, 6th Floor Fresno, California 93721 Re: Jeffrey Cox v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC, et al. Consolidated Case No.: 1:17-cv-01056-DAD-BAM Jeffrey Cox’s Letter Brief Re Roadrunner’s Production of Documents Dear Magistrate McAuliffe: Pursuant to the Court’s order issued March 14, 2019 (ECF No. 188), Jeffrey Cox (“Mr. Cox”) submits the following letter brief. Mr. Cox understands that there is two (2) issues before the Court: (1) Deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) for third party witness Expeditors; and (2) Deposition of Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC’s (“Roadrunner”) expert witness Richard J. Eichmann. 1. PMK Deposition The sole purpose of Roadrunner’s proposed deposition of Expeditors’ PMK is to discern Expeditor’s reason for cutting off business ties with Roadrunner. Roadrunner seeks to prove that Mr. Cox and/or T.G.S. solicited Expeditors, caused Expeditors to cease doing business with Roadrunner, and, therefore, caused Roadrunner damages. However, conducting the deposition of Expeditors’ PMK after the close of non-expert discovery is neither warranted or necessary under the circumstances. Conducting the deposition is unwarranted because Roadrunner has had sufficient time to depose all third-party witnesses necessary to prove its case. True, Expeditors’ attorney’s Case 1:17-cv-01056-DAD-BAM Document 191 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 2 Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe March 15, 2019 Page 2 015130.00002 - 220830.1 unexpected injury made Expeditors unavailable for the deposition scheduled near the non-expert discovery cutoff, but Roadrunner had substantial time to schedule a deposition prior to the injury and could have scheduled the deposition in 2018. Roadrunner cannot justify delaying until after the non-expert discovery cutoff date to conduct the deposition in question. Roadrunner, either since the conception of this litigation or shortly thereafter, knew of those third-parties whom allegedly defected from Roadrunner because of alleged solicitation by Mr. Cox and/or T.G.S. Roadrunner has simply sat on its hands and ignored the discovery cut-off date in question. Moreover, conducting the deposition is unnecessary. At prior depositions of third-parties, Roadrunner has generally sought information regarding the reason for each third-party entity’s decision to cease doing business with Roadrunner, information regarding any solicitation of the entity by Mr. Cox and/or T.G.S., and information regarding the time frame each entity began doing business with Mr. Cox and/or T.G.S. after ending its working relationship with Roadrunner. Expeditors’ PMK, Robert Flores, has attested, under oath, to each of the above matters covering each of the topics that Roadrunner would seek to address if permitted to take the deposition in question. Specifically, Mr. Flores attests under penalty of perjury that Expeditors ceased doing business with Roadrunner in June 2017 because of Roadrunner’s deficient performance, which persisted for months prior to the termination of the economic relationship. Moreover, Mr. Flores attests that Expeditors’ decision to cease doing business with Roadrunner was not caused by solicitation efforts by either Mr. Cox or T.G.S. Finally, Mr. Flores attests that Expeditors began doing business with Mr. Cox and/or T.G.S. in March 2018. In short, conducting the deposition of Expeditors PMK after the discovery cut-off date is unwarranted. Roadrunner could have taken the deposition within the discovery deadline, but inexplicably failed to do so. Moreover, even if Roadrunner could justify its failure to conduct the deposition in a timely manner, the deposition is unnecessary based on the contents of Mr. Flores’ declaration. Requiring the deposition to take place would only waste the resources of Mr. Cox, T.G.S., and the third-party witness Expeditors. 2. Deposition of Roadrunner Expert Richard J. Eichmann Mr. Cox seeks to take the deposition of Mr. Eichmann in order to comply with the Court’s expert discovery cut-off date. As the Court is aware, supplemental expert reports are due from the parties on March 29, 2019. It is necessary that the Court permit the deposition of Mr. Eichmann to take place on March 25, 2019, so that Mr. Cox can supplement his expert reports to the extent necessary. Mr. Cox, at the very least, needs a few days to analyze Mr. Eichmann’s testimony, determine whether supplementation is necessary, and allow his expert the time to prepare supplemental expert analysis. For these reasons, Mr. Cox believes conducting the deposition of Mr. Eichmann on March 25, 2019, is necessary and proper. Sincerely, /s/ Christopher M. Rusca Christopher M. Rusca CMR/mdf Case :17-cv-01056-DAD-BAM Document 191 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 2