Doe v. City of San Mateo et al

Filing 287

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S RECENT DISCOVERY REQUESTS[Docket Nos. 273, 284, 285] (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2009)

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 SAN MATEO, et al., Defendants. / JANE DOE, Plaintiff, No. C 07-05596 SI ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S RECENT DISCOVERY REQUESTS [Docket Nos. 273, 284, 285] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel the County of San Mateo to produce the names of the sheriff's deputies who were assigned to plaintiff's jail cell on the night of November 5, 2005. [Docket No. 273] The County of San Mateo responds that it has already produced a document that lists all sheriff's department personnel on duty during the time period at issue in this case. It also requests sanctions against plaintiff for purportedly misrepresenting the content of a conversation between plaintiff and counsel for the County. It appears that the County of San Mateo has produced a document that reveals only the last names of the personnel in question. Accordingly, the Court orders the County of San Mateo to supplement this information by producing the first names of the sheriff's department personnel who were on duty at the San Mateo County Jail during the approximately five hours that plaintiff was in custody on the night of November 5, 2005. The County shall provide this information within seven days of the filing of this order. The Court denies the County's request for sanctions but admonishes plaintiff to take utmost care to be accurate when describing to this Court communications she has had with opposing counsel.

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

Plaintiff has filed two motions requesting extensions. In the first, she requests an extension to the deadline for filing a motion to compel defendants' responses to interrogatories propounded by plaintiff. [Docket No. 284] In the second, she requests an extension to the deadline for filing a motion to compel defendants to produce documents. [Docket No. 285] The Court has not imposed any deadlines by which the parties must file motions to compel. Plaintiff therefore need not seek leave of Court for extensions; the only requirement is that she meet and confer with opposing counsel before filing these motions. Plaintiff's motions for extensions are therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2009

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2