Estate of Amilcar Perez Lopez et al v. Suhr et al

Filing 34

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. TEMPORARILY STAYING DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY RE 20 . (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

v.

Case No. 15-cv-01846-HSG
ORDER TEMPORARILY STAYING
DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY
Re: Dkt. No. 20

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

GREG SUHR, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Pending before the Court is a motion to stay discovery and disclosures in this matter, filed

14

by Defendants Police Chief Greg Suhr, the City and County of San Francisco, Officer Craig Tiffe,

15

and Officer Eric Reboli (collectively, “Defendants”). Dkt. No. 20. Plaintiffs Estate of Amilcar

16

Lopez, Margarita Lopez Perez, and Juan Perez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an opposition on

17

October 2, 2015, Dkt. No. 25, and Defendants replied, Dkt No. 27. The Court held a hearing on

18

the motion on October 29, 2015, at which counsel for both parties submitted argument.

19

As discussed with the parties at the hearing, the Court hereby orders disclosures and

20

discovery in this case STAYED for 60 days, calculated from the date of the hearing, through

21

December 29, 2015. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; see also Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45

22

F.3d 322, 324-25 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court further ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to

23

determine if there are any materials they can informally exchange during the pendency of the stay.

24

The parties are ordered to appear at a further case management conference on December

25

29, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. At the hearing, the parties should be prepared to discuss the status of both

26

the San Francisco Police Department’s investigation and, to the extent known, the San Francisco

27

District Attorney’s Office investigation into the officer-involved shooting that is the subject matter

28

of this litigation. The Court will want to discuss: (1) whether the investigations have been

1

completed; (2) if they have not, a good faith estimate as to when those investigations will be

2

completed; (3) whether the parties have met and conferred as ordered; and (4) whether the parties

3

have exchanged, or plan to exchange, any materials as a result of their meet and confer.

4

Defendants need not renew their motion upon expiration of the stay. The Court will notify

5

the parties at the December 29 hearing if it requires supplemental briefing regarding whether to

6

extend the stay.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: November 9, 2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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