Lawrence v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 67

ORDER re: 66 MOTION Motion to Change Time and Reopen Discovery filed by Emil Lawrence. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/21/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EMIL LAWRENCE,

Case No. 14-cv-00820-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DEADLINE

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 66

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

On October 20, 2015, Plaintiff Emil Lawrence filed a motion to reopen discovery to: (1)

14

seek unredacted versions of documents Defendant already produced, arguing they were not

15

properly redacted in the first place; (2) seek documents he contends Defendant improperly

16

withheld from production; and (3) allow him to take the deposition of three witnesses: officers

17

Bonnel, Peters, and Enea. Dkt. No. 66. On July 31, 2015, this Court appointed counsel to

18

represent Plaintiff, who prior to that date was an unrepresented litigant. Dkt. No. 55. After

19

reviewing Plaintiff’s discovery requests and Defendant’s responses, Plaintiff’s “counsel concluded

20

that City’s responses and production did not comply with its discovery obligations and that

21

Lawrence had not completed discovery necessary to prepare for trial or to productively participate

22

in settlement discussions.” White Decl. ¶¶ 6-8 & Ex. A, Dkt. No. 66-1. Under the Court’s Case

23

Management Order, discovery closed on February 10, 2015. Dkt. No. 19.

24

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds good cause may exist to reopen

25

discovery, as it will benefit both the parties’ settlement negotiations and, if negotiations are

26

unsuccessful, resolution of this case on the merits. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to

27

meet in confer in person to determine whether they can stipulate to reopening discovery on

28

grounds that are beneficial to both parties. If unable to agree to a stipulation, the parties shall file

1

a joint letter in compliance with the undersigned’s Discovery Standing Order. As any briefing on

2

this issue will be by joint letter rather than motion, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion

3

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7
8

Dated: October 21, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2