Frye

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