Gremp v. Little et al

Filing 120

DISCOVERY ORDER re 103 Letter filed by Lary W. Gremp. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 8/20/2009. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
LARY W. GREMP, v. SARAH LITTLE, Defendants. _____________________________________/ Plaintiff, No. C 08-02303 MMC (MEJ) DISCOVERY ORDER

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

On August 4, 2009, Plaintiff Lary Gremp and Defendants Patrick Taylor and Glenn Van Schaack (collectively, "the State Defendants") filed a joint letter regarding a discovery dispute centering on the State Defendants' responses to contention interrogatories that Plaintiff propounded. (Dkt. #103.) Plaintiff contends that the interrogatories require the State Defendants to "state those facts, if any, which they rely upon that 1) there was probable cause to arrest Lary Gremp; and 2) Gremp forged documents." (Id. at 1.) The State Defendants oppose Plaintiff's request on two grounds. First, they contend that Plaintiff's request is untimely because the deadline for bringing a motion to compel discovery was June 23, 2009 - a week after the cut-off for fact discovery. (Id. at 2.) Second, the State Defendants contend that the information Plaintiff seeks in his interrogatories is irrelevant because the State Defendants, who were State employees of the Department of Food & Agriculture, did not act or fail to act on probable cause. (Id. at 2-3.) Rather, the State Defendants argue that it was the sheriff's investigators, prosecutors, and superior court judge who made the probable cause determination. (Id.) Thus, the State Defendants urge the Court to deny Plaintiff's request to compel production. The Court has carefully considered the parties' arguments and reviewed the attached document. The Court finds the State Defendants' arguments to be well-taken. Not only is Plaintiff's

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12
For the Northern District of California

request untimely, but the State Defendants have already sufficiently answered Plaintiff's interrogatories. As the State Defendants point out, they did not make a probable cause determination and their Response so indicates. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request to compel answers to his contention interrogatories. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2009

_______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2