Valladon v. City of Oakland
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' SCHEDULING REQUEST (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2009)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. CITY OF OAKLAND, Defendant. / ROBERT VALLADON, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C 06-07478 SI ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' SCHEDULING REQUEST IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiffs have filed a letter brief requesting the Court's intervention in a dispute over the scheduling of depositions. [Docket No. 130] Plaintiffs seek an order (1) moving the hearing on defendant's motions for summary judgment from March 20 to April 24 in order to allow plaintiffs time to conduct depositions before filing their oppositions, (2) ordering defendant to designate a substitute deponent for Peter Fitzsimmons by February 13, 2009 and for the deposition to be completed by March 13, 2009, and (3) permitting plaintiffs to subpoena Deborah Taylor-Johnson for a deposition on March 17, 2009. The Court rules as follows. Defendant agrees to move the summary judgment hearing to April 10 but does not represent that it would be prejudiced by continuing the hearing another two weeks beyond that date. Plaintiffs' request to move the hearing to April 24 is therefore GRANTED. Plaintiffs have not explained to the Court why an additional deposition of Mr. Fitzsimmons or his replacement is necessary. The Court therefore cannot decide this issue and directs the parties to meet and confer. It appears from defendant's letter brief that defendant does not oppose the issuance of a subpoena as to Ms. Taylor-Johnson. The parties are directed to meet and confer over any remaining
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
dispute on this issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2009
SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge
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?