John et al v. Garcia et al

Filing 65

ORDER CONTINUING STAY OF HEARING PENDING MEDIATION (granting 64 ) AND DENYING 60 REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Alsup on 5/16/2017. Status Report due by 7/3/2017. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

ADRIAN JOHN, SR., et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 16-02368 WHA

Petitioners,
v.

12

AGUSTIN GARCIA, et al.,

13

ORDER CONTINUING STAY
OF HEARING PENDING
MEDIATION AND DENYING
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

Respondents.
/

14
15

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ joint status report and request to further stay the

16

hearing on respondents’ motion to dismiss pending mediation on June 30 (Dkt. No. 64 at 2).

17

The request is GRANTED. The parties shall please submit another joint status report updating

18

the Court on the progress of mediation by JULY 3 AT NOON. Further continuances past July 3

19

are unlikely to be granted.

20

Additionally, the Court has reviewed petitioners’ submission titled, “Supplemental

21

Materials and Request for Discovery” (Dkt. No. 60). Statements in passive tense like “Ms.

22

Steele was recently denied use of the Elem PRC Program because she was deemed ineligible”

23

and “Ms. Steele was informed that she was not eligible for the Elem PRC Program” beg key

24

questions like who denied her use of the program and informed her that she was ineligible (see

25

id. at 5). Even the declaration itself suffers from the same defects, setting forth unhelpful

26

statements like “I was told that these expenses needed to be reimbursed directly by the Tribe”

27

and “I was denied access [to a tribal meeting]” (see id. at 99, 101).

28

1

It is unfair to the judge to make these non-specific statements, with citations to similarly

2

non-specific declarations buried in a hundred-page-plus combined document, and expect the

3

judge to surmise factual details that should be plainly set forth in petitioners’ request. The

4

Court is not convinced at this time that further discovery is warranted. Petitioners’ request is

5

therefore DENIED without prejudice to their renewing it at a later time. If the request is

6

renewed, however, it should be written in active voice and should clearly set forth complete and

7

accurate citations to supporting evidence.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: May 16, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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