Hill v. Star et al

Filing 98

ORDER REGARDING JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER 97 by Judge Edward M. Chen (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

TION ALONZO HILL, SR.,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C09-5434 EMC

DEPUTY ARNOLD, et al.,

12

DISCOVERY ORDER REGARDING
JOINT LETTER BRIEF

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 97)

13
14

On December 11, 2014, the parties in this litigation filed a joint discovery letter brief with

15

the Court describing a dispute regarding various depositions. Docket No. 97. The Court notes that

16

the fact discovery cut-off in this case was December 4, 2014. See Docket No. 94. As provided in

17

this Court’s Civil Local Rules, a discovery cut-off “is the date by which . . . all depositions must be

18

concluded.” Civil Local Rule 37-3. Accordingly, the Court finds that all of the requested

19

depositions referenced in the parties’ joint letter brief are untimely under this Court’s Local Rules.1

20

The Court has previously reopened discovery in this case, and extended the discovery cut-

21

off. See Docket No. 87 (setting August 7, 2014, discovery cut-off); Docket No. 94 (reopening

22

discover and extending discovery cut-off to December 4, 2014). The Court is loathe to do so again

23

absent compelling reasons beyond the parties’ control. Still, with trial not scheduled to begin until

24

June 2015, and the final pre-trial conference not set to take place until May, the Court finds that the

25
26
27
28

1

The Court further observes that Plaintiffs’ service of deposition notices just days before the
requested depositions (and the discovery cut-off) is a violation of this Court’s Standing Order on
Discovery. See Civil Standing Order on Discovery 3(a) (“Generally, the party seeking the deposition
may notice it at least ten (10) days in advance.”).

1

interests of justice will be served (and no delay caused) by a short further extension to permit each

2

side to conduct limited additional depositions as outlined below.

3

The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) shall make available for deposition, at a

4

mutually agreeable time to be determined by the parties, the two defendants in this case within thirty

5

(30) days of the issuance of this Order. CCSF shall also file with this Court within twenty (20) days

6

a list identifying which, if any, of the remaining thirteen (13) requested deponents they will call to

7

testify at trial. Plaintiff may depose any two (2) of these thirteen witnesses, whether or not CCSF

8

includes them on its trial witness list. These depositions will take place at a mutually agreeable time

9

to be determined by the parties, but not later than January 30, 2015.
Plaintiff’s counsel will file with this Court a certification that he no longer represents Ms.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Apperson or Mr. Billops within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs’ counsel is also

12

ordered to provide CCSF with Ms. Apperson’s and Mr. Billop’s last known mailing address, email

13

address, and telephone number(s). CCSF shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to

14

effectuate service on Ms. Apperson and/or Mr. Billop. CCSF shall have forty-five (45) days from

15

the date of this Order to conclude Ms. Apperson’s and/or Mr. Billop’s depositions.

16
17

This Order disposes of Docket No. 97
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: December 12, 2014

20
21

_________________________

22

EDWARD M. CHEN

23

United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2