ABN Corporation et al v. Groupe Pelm International Corporation et al

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
ABN CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GROUPE PELM INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00004-RFL (LJC)
ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION
OF DEFENDANT BRIEANT
Re: Dkt. No. 209
The Court has reviewed the parties’ joint statement (ECF No. 209) in response to the
Court’s February 19, 2026 Order (ECF No. 208). The joint request to extend the deadline for
Defendant Brieant’s deposition to March 17, 2026 is GRANTED in light of Brieant’s illness.1
Brieant is ORDERED to “provide counsel for Plaintiffs a proposed date(s) certain for the
deposition no later than close of business this coming Monday, February 23, 2026” as agreed by
the parties. ECF No. 209 at 1. The deadline for the parties to file a joint statement indicating the
date and time of Brieant’s deposition, which the parties have now agreed will occur via Zoom, is
continued to February 25, 2026. Plaintiffs must serve a deposition notice by the same deadline,
and the parties must attach that notice to their joint statement. No further extension of those
deadlines will be granted absent a particularized showing of medical need (which may be filed
under seal if necessary) or similarly extraordinary and compelling circumstances supported by
evidence.
The Court generally declines to address Brieant’s further re-argument of matters
1 The parties also ask to vacate a “scheduling conference presently set for February 20, 2026.”
ECF No. 209 at 1. This Court has not set any such conference, and it does not appear that Judge
Lin did so either.
Case 3:23-cv-00004-RFL Document 210 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 3

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
previously decided, but two issues of compliance with past orders warrant comment.
First, Brieant asserts that she did not violate the original December 22 deadline to sit for a
deposition because Plaintiffs never served a deposition notice. ECF No. 209 at 1. If so, the Court
was incorrect to place sole blame on Brieant for the failure to meet that deadline. The parties
instead appear to have shared an assumption that they could disregard this Court’s deadline while
they were awaiting Judge Lin’s decision on Brieant’s motion for relief and meeting and conferring
regarding other issues. See id.
That assumption was incorrect. Magistrate judges are empowered under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) to “to hear and determine any pretrial matter” referred by a district judge (subject
to certain limitations) and to “issue a written order” under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. That authority is distinct from the authority to issue recommendations under
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b). Recommendations have no effect unless and until adopted by a
district judge, but orders are effective in themselves. Much like how parties generally must
comply with district courts’ orders and judgments even when pursuing an appeal (unless a stay has
been granted), parties must comply with magistrate judges’ orders even when pursuing a motion
for relief before the presiding district judge (unless interim relief is sought and granted).
This Court made that clear in the February 2, 2026 text-only order: “This Order is
binding unless altered by a subsequent order, and all parties should be prepared to comply with it
by the deadlines stated above even if a motion for relief is filed.” ECF No. 203. There is no
indication that Brieant was prepared to do so. Brieant now asserts that she received medical
advice on or about February 16, 2026 that she could not travel or sit for a deposition, ECF No. 209
at 2, but she made no mention of that in the joint letter filed February 18, 2026—nor did that letter
seek to extend the deadline for her deposition. See generally ECF No. 207.
This Court will not, of course, compel Brieant to sit for a deposition if she demonstrates
through medical evidence that she is unable to do so. Going forward, however, the parties must
diligently raise any requests for relief from court-ordered deadlines, and they must be prepared to
comply with those deadlines if such requests are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 3:23-cv-00004-RFL Document 210 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
Dated: February 20, 2026
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00004-RFL Document 210 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 3