Robinson v. San Joaquin County et al

Filing 160

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 3/23/18 ORDERING that Defendant's Motion to Compel further production of documents 145 is DISMISSED as moot. Pursuant to the court's Scheduling Order, ECF No. 138 at 2:9-20, discovery in this case is now closed. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY W. ROBINSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-CV-02783-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Defendant San Joaquin County’s Motion to Compel further responses to discovery, ECF

18

No. 152, was heard on the court’s 9:00 a.m. calendar on March 22, 2013. Plaintiff appeared in

19

pro se on his own behalf and defendant was represented by attorney Jamie M. Bossuet of the

20

Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & Christopherson firm. No joint statement regarding the

21

discovery disagreement was filed pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 251.

22

Instead, defendant filed an affidavit declaring that plaintiff had not completed his portion of the

23

Joint Statement which defendant had prepared and forwarded to him. Plaintiff explained that he

24

had been served with a motion by defendants to which he had to prepare an opposition and had

25

run out of time to address the Joint Statement.

26

During the hearing, after the court put aside from discussion any documents which had

27

been already produced by either side in this litigation, plaintiff first assured the court that he had

28

no documents in his possession responsive to the discovery request at issue that he intended to
1

1

use as evidence in his case-in-chief and thus no additional material to disclose. The court

2

discussed third-party documents plaintiff indicated he did have in his possession, and plaintiff

3

declared that none of these documents were to be used in his evidentiary presentation, but rather

4

were for use solely in rebuttal or for impeachment purposes. After a full discussion of the types

5

of third-party documents that were producible pursuant to the request, and those that could be

6

protected by the work product doctrine, plaintiff again stated that he had no documents that were

7

within the description provided by the court, producible either for case-in-chief purposes or

8

impeachment purposes.

9

After the court further explained that any yet unproduced documents could not be

10

submitted as trial exhibits for any purpose, the parties agreed, plaintiff on his own behalf, and

11

attorney Bossuet on behalf of the moving defendant, that the Request for Production of

12

documents had been fully satisfied and the matter was now moot.

13

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel further production of documents is DISMISSED as

2.

Pursuant to the court’s Scheduling Order, ECF No. 138 at 2:9-20, discovery in this

15
16
17
18
19
20

moot.

case is now closed.
3.

Unless the subject of stipulation, plaintiff may not seek to admit at trial any

documents which have not yet been produced by the parties in this litigation;
4.

The Clerk of the Court shall remove the gavel designation from ECF No. 152 and

21

from ECF No. 145, which was resolved by an Order dated December 13, 2017, ECF No. 146.

22

Dated: March 23, 2018

23

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2