Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Nicholson et al

Filing 149

Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Nicholson et al

Doc. 149

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE and VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC., Plaintiffs, v. JAMES B. PEAKE, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. C-07-3758 SC ORDER ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING

DISCOVERY Plaintiffs have filed numerous requests for production of

documents from Defendants. responses and objections.

Defendants, in turn, have submitted Plaintiffs argue that they require

certain of these documents in order to fully present their Motion for Preliminary Injunction at the hearing scheduled for Monday, March 3. To the extent possible, Defendants are hereby ORDERED to

produce the documents requested in Plaintiffs' Designation of Witnesses and List of Required Documents for Preliminary Injunction Hearing. See Docket No. 137 at 4-6.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

II.

PROTECTIVE ORDER The parties have been unable to agree on a protective order.

Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order is set to be heard on March 7, 2008. Plaintiffs urge the Court to adopt their version

of the protective order prior to the preliminary injunction hearing. The Court reminds the parties, however, that the focus

of the hearing will not be on individual veterans' claims. Although the Court is aware that entry of a protective order will likely be necessary for future discovery, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that such an order is necessary for the preliminary injunction hearing.

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

III. WITNESSES Both parties have filed lists designating their proposed witnesses for the preliminary injunction hearing. Plaintiffs

allege that Defendants are refusing to produce five witnesses whom Plaintiffs wish to examine at the hearing. Of these five Kussman,

witnesses, one, Michael Kussman, is a named party.

rather than appearing himself, has, according to Defendants, directed that his Principal Deputy, Gerald Cross, appear and provide testimony. So long as Cross is able to competently

testify to the same information that Kussman would, the Court is satisfied that Cross's appearance in place of Kussman is appropriate. If, however, it becomes apparent that Cross lacks

information or expertise that Kussman would have, the Court will stay the proceedings for a brief period in order that Defendants may produce Kussman at the hearing. -2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

Regarding the other four witnesses, none of whom is a named party, Plaintiffs have not attempted to subpoena any of them. The

Court therefore declines to require these witnesses to appear at the hearing. The parties also appear unable to agree on the scheduling of witness testimony during the hearing. In case there is any

confusion, the Court notes that Plaintiffs will be expected to present their witnesses first. Once Plaintiffs have presented

their case, the Court will determine whether any rebuttal testimony by Defendants' witnesses is necessary. Both parties are

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

expected to have their witnesses on hand and prepared to testify.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2008 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-