Monterrosa et al v. City of Vallejo et al

Filing 96

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/13/024 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 4/10/2024 Motion for Sanctions 89 is withdrawn; and Defendant's 4/12/2024 Motion for a protective order 90 is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 NEFTALI MONTERROSA, et al., 11 12 13 No. 2:20-cv-1563 DAD DB Plaintiffs, v. ORDER CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 On May 10, 2024, this matter came before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 17 302(c)(1) for hearing of plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions and defendant City of Vallejo’s motion 18 for a protective order. Attorney John Coyle appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. Attorney 19 Katelyn Knight appeared on behalf of defendant City of Vallejo. Attorneys David Mastagni and 20 Taylor Davies-Mahaffey appeared on behalf of the Vallejo Police Officers’ Association 21 (“VPOA”). 22 At the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel and counsel for VPOA explained that they had resolved 23 their discovery disagreement and plaintiff withdrew the motion for sanctions. With respect to 24 defendant’s motion for a protective order, the deadline for the completion of fact discovery was 25 April 30, 2024. (ECF No. 86.) As explained by the August 6, 2020 scheduling order, 26 “‘completed’ means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been 27 taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if 28 necessary, and where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.) 1 1 At the May 10, 2024 hearing, counsel for defendant confirmed that the discovery at issue 2 concerned fact discovery. Because the deadline for the completion of fact discovery has run, 3 defendant’s motion is untimely.1 Defendant’s motion will be denied without prejudice to renewal 4 in the event that fact-based discovery is reopened in this action. The undersigned would, 5 nonetheless, encourage the parties to continue to meet and confer and attempt to narrow, if not 6 resolve, this dispute. 7 Upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, and for the 8 reasons set forth on the record at that hearing and above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s April 10, 2024 motion for sanctions (ECF No. 89) is withdrawn; and 2. Defendant’s April 12, 2024 motion for a protective order (ECF No. 90) is denied 10 11 without prejudice to renewal. 12 Dated: May 13, 2024 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.civil/monterrosa1563.oah.051024 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendant previously filed a motion for a protective order on December 14, 2023. (ECF No. 79.) Defendant twice continued the hearing of the motion before the motion was eventually denied on April 1, 2024, due to the failure to file a Joint Statement. (ECF Nos. 79, 80, 88.) 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?