IntusCare, Inc. v. RTZ Associates, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INTUS CARE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-01132-JST (AGT)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 144
On May 13, 2026, the Court held that Intus couldn’t depose Kevin Lathrop, the Pres-
ident of Collabrios Health, LLC, because the deadline by which to conduct fact discovery,
March 9, 2026, had passed. Dkt. 141 at 1–2. On May 28, 2026, the parties filed a joint letter
brief in which they have asked the Court “to resolve a dispute about the scope of Kevin
Lathrop’s deposition.” Dkt. 144 at 1. After explaining that they “stipulated that [Lathrop’s]
deposition could be taken following [the] discovery cut-off to accommodate counsel’s
schedules,” the parties request that the Court address whether Intus may ask Lathrop ques-
tions about third-party Collabrios at his deposition. Id.
The parties’ letter brief is essentially a request for reconsideration, which the Court
will deny for two reasons. First, in their initial letter brief about Lathrop’s deposition, which
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 153 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 2

2
the parties filed on May 5, 2026, the parties didn’t mention their stipulation about taking
Lathrop’s deposition after the discovery cutoff. See Dkt. 130. Their stipulation, then, isn’t a
new material fact; and in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the parties could have told the
Court about the stipulation in their May 5 letter brief. Under the Local Rules, reconsideration
isn’t warranted. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b).
Second, in any event, the stipulation doesn’t alter the Court’s reasoning. The parties
cannot unilaterally stipulate to conduct discovery after the cutoff. “[A] stipulation extending
the time for any form of discovery must have court approval if it would interfere with the
time set for completing discovery, for hearing a motion, or for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b);
see Squaregles LLC v. Laltitude LLC, 2025 WL 3248687, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2025)
(prohibiting a party from deposing a witness after the discovery cutoff; “Rule 29 is clear on
this point: a stipulation that would interfere with the time set for completing discovery ‘must
have court approval.’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b))).
If the parties intended to depose Lathrop after the discovery cutoff, they should have
requested leave to extend the cutoff or to conduct limited discovery beyond the cutoff. The
Court reaffirms its prior ruling. “Intus may not depose Kevin Lathrop . . . at this time.” Dkt.
141 at 2.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 1, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 153 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 2