Frye

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARRON FRYE, Case No. 2:22-cv-1936-DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 17, 19) 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel a Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant City of Sacramento and production of 19 documents, and her corresponding motion for an extension of time to conduct this 20 discovery.1 (ECF Nos. 17, 20.) The Court held a hearing on April 10, 2024, where 21 attorney Glenn Katon appeared for Plaintiff and attorney Kate Daz Lynn Brosseau 22 appeared for Defendants. 23 For the reasons that follow and as stated at the hearing, Plaintiff’s motions are 24 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As provided in more detail below, Plaintiff 25 shall have until June 5, 2024 to conduct the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as modified below, 26 and Defendant shall have until June 5, 2024 to produce documents responsive to 27 1 This matter proceeds…