Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ron Rogers sued his former employer, McDonald's USA, LLC, in the Northern District of California for disability discrimination, retaliation, and related claims under California law. The claims arise from two medical leaves (he returned to work in September 2023 and February 2025), his 2024 performance ratings, the handling of his 2024 application to the Owner/Operator franchise program, and the elimination of his position in 2025. The order recounts his allegations, which are not findings: that in July 2024 HR urged management to tell him it did not support his application, that Franchising was asked to take a pause, that he received an Off Track midyear assessment on July 29, 2024, and that his application was rejected the day after he challenged that rating. McDonald's contends he never submitted a complete application because it lacked a recommendation letter, was never interviewed or considered, and suffered no adverse employment action from the franchise process.
The case began in May 2025. Rogers's September 9, 2025 initial disclosures identified all six people he later sought to depose. Fact discovery closed on September 10, 2026. He had taken eight depositions, including his manager (seven hours over two sessions), several HR representatives, and the former senior director of U.S. franchising, and his ten noticed depositions include a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of McDonald's. The parties agreed the last two of the ten could proceed after the cutoff. In an October 16, 2026 joint letter, Rogers sought leave for seven more: four colleagues who gave favorable 2024 feedback, a franchising employee, the President of McDonald's USA, and a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the franchise process. The parties had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denied the request without a hearing. Leave to exceed ten depositions must be granted only to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2), and Rule 26(b)(2)(C) requires limiting discovery that is unreasonably cumulative, that the requesting party has had ample opportunity to obtain, or that is disproportionate. The requester must make a particularized showing of need for each deposition. Because fact discovery had closed, Rogers also needed good cause under Rule 16(b)(4), which turns primarily on diligence. He had known of all six people for a year, chose his ten depositions with that knowledge, and asked five weeks after the cutoff without explaining the delay.
The court also rejected each request on the merits. The four colleagues' written feedback is already in the record as an exhibit to the manager's deposition, none was a decisionmaker, and the pretext question is whether McDonald's honestly believed its stated reasons, so four depositions to confirm written praise were cumulative and disproportionate. The court accepted that the July 2024 communications make the franchise episode relevant to motive, but held that relevance is not need. Rogers did not say what the former franchising director could not answer, did not dispute that director's testimony that the franchising employee had no role in reviewing applications, and could have noticed the franchising topics in his first corporate deposition. For the McDonald's USA President, an apex executive, he showed neither unique first-hand knowledge nor exhaustion of less intrusive means. Counsel's stated understanding that she sat on a review panel, which McDonald's counsel called false, was not enough, and a written deposition of 68 questions would still count against the limit.
A footnote says the court considered allowing a three-hour corporate deposition limited to who paused the application and the criteria applied to employee applicants, but denied it given the documents McDonald's produced and the lack of a particularized showing.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking more than ten depositions must show particularized need for each additional witness; a list of topics or general relevance is not enough.
- After fact discovery closes, Rule 16(b)(4) diligence applies, and naming witnesses in initial disclosures a year before the cutoff, then asking late without explanation, weighs against leave.
- Depositions that would only confirm written feedback already in the record are cumulative and disproportionate in a single-plaintiff employment case.
- A second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on topics a party could have noticed the first time is discovery it had ample opportunity to take.
- Counsel's unverified understanding of an apex executive's involvement does not show unique knowledge, and a written deposition counts toward the ten-deposition limit.
Why It Matters
This is a discovery ruling by a magistrate judge presiding by consent, not a final judgment, and it is an unreported order with limited persuasive weight. It denies only the additional depositions. The case continues, including the two agreed post-cutoff depositions, and the court did not decide whether the franchise process is independently actionable or the merits of any claim.
The order shows how courts apply the ten-deposition cap together with the Rule 16 schedule: a late request must show diligence and witness-specific need, and the court treats relevance as a separate question from need. It also illustrates the apex-deposition showing and the limits of offering a written deposition as a compromise.