Garcia v. City of Santa Clara et al

Filing 75


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 DANIEL C. GARCIA (CDCR # AM5700), United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 ORDER LIFTING STAY AND FOR CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTS Plaintiff, 9 10 No. C 10-2424 SI (pr) v. CITY OF SANTA CLARA; et al., Defendants. / 13 14 This action was stayed on May 19, 2012 because of criminal cases pending against 15 plaintiff. Those cases eventually were resolved against plaintiff. Plaintiff now applies to lift the 16 stay in this action and defendants do not oppose the lifting of the stay. Accordingly, plaintiff's 17 application to lift the stay is GRANTED. (Docket # 73.) The stay is now LIFTED and the clerk 18 will REOPEN the action. 19 In order to move this action toward resolution, the parties may immediately resume their 20 discovery efforts. Plaintiff's request for the court to issue an order "establishing the parameters 21 for discovery," id. at 2, is rejected. The court generally is not involved in the discovery process 22 and only becomes involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery 23 responses. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties 24 without any copy being sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and 25 responses that "must not" be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court 26 orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve 27 among themselves should the parties even consider asking the court to intervene in the discovery 28 process. The court does not have enough time or resources to oversee all discovery, and therefore requires that the parties present to it only their very specific disagreements, and only 1 after they have met and conferred in a good faith effort to try to resolve their disagreements. 2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N. D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, a litigant is incarcerated, 3 the meet-and-confer process may be done in writing. 4 Each party must file and serve a case management statement no later than June 13, 2014 5 indicating what discovery remains to be done, the amount of time needed for discovery, whether 6 any further motions will be filed, when they will be ready for trial, and an estimate of the number 7 of days needed for trial. The case management statements need not be jointly prepared. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 12, 2014 _______________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?