Khankin v. CSL Behring, L.L.C.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ELIYAHU KHANKIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CSL BEHRING, L.L.C.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-04030-SVK
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE AT
DKT. 48
Re: Dkt. No. 48
Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Submission pursuant to which Plaintiff seeks a
30(b)(6) deposition and substantive responses to several Interrogatories and Requests for
Production (“RFP”s). Defendant’s primary response is that Plaintiff has failed to meet and confer
regarding these issues as required by this Court’s standing order. Discovery closes on
February 27, 2026. Dkt. 42. The Court has reviewed the Joint Submission, the litigation history
and the relevant law, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the controlling standing
order, and determines that this matter may be resolved without oral argument. Civ.L.R.7-1(b).
1. 30(b)(6) Deposition
In a prior order, this Court “granted Plaintiff’s request to take the deposition of Ethan
Schwartz regardless of whether that deposition exceeds the limit of 10 depositions per side.”
Dkt. 42. The Court did not, as Plaintiff suggests, more generally expand his deposition limit to
eleven. Although not entirely clear, it now appears that Plaintiff seeks to take a 30(b)(6)
deposition in place of the Schwartz deposition. Dkt. 48 at 2. Defendant complains about the need
for a 30(b)(6) deponent and Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer on this issue but acknowledges
that an amended notice was timely served on January 26, 2026. Id. at 5. Accordingly, as
discovery has not yet closed in this matter, the Court ORDERS as follows:
• Plaintiff must abide by the ten deposition limit; the only exception is for the Schwartz
Case 5:24-cv-04030-SVK Document 53 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of
 California
deposition;
• Plaintiff may proceed with a 30(b)(6) deposition, PROVIDED that i) it is within the ten
deposition limit, and ii) Plaintiff meets and confers with Defendant regarding the scope of
the 30(b)(6) notice as directed below;
• The 30(b)(6) deposition to be completed no later than March 9, 2026.
2. Written Discovery
Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant’s representations that i) Defendant responded in
September 2025, to Plaintiff’s concerns regarding Defendant’s responses to written discovery;
ii) Defendant offered at that time to meet and confer; iii) Plaintiff failed to raise its concerns in
subsequent meet and confer discussions regarding depositions; iv) Plaintiff did not revisit
concerns regarding written discovery responses until January 2026, at which time he informed
Defendant he would proceed with the Joint Submission. Dkt. 48 and 6-7. In sum, Plaintiff
concedes his failure to diligently pursue a resolution to discovery disputes, as required by the
Court. However, discovery has not yet closed, and the Local Rules allow disputes to be raised
with seven days of the discovery cut-off. Civ. L.R. 37-4. Accordingly, the Court rules on certain
of the disputed requests on the record before it. The Court’s reasoning and rulings are set forth in
Attachment A. Additionally, as to Interrogatory nos. 16 and 17 and RFPs nos. 40 and 41, the
Parties are ORDERED to meet and confer as directed below.
3. Meet and Confer and Supplemental Responses and Production of Documents
No later than February 25, 2026 the Parties are to meet and confer either in person or by
video conference as to the disputed 30(b)(6) categories and discovery responses indicated above.
Supplemental, verified interrogatory responses and production of documents to be served no later
than March 9, 2026.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2026
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:24-cv-04030-SVK Document 53 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 2