Kirola et al v. City & County of San Francisco, The et al

Filing 272

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 258 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney DANNY CHOU, State Bar # 180240 Chief of Complex and Special Litigation JAMES M. EMERY, State Bar #153630 ELAINE M. O'NEIL, State Bar #142234 Deputy City Attorneys 1390 Market Street, Seventh Floor San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-Mail: elaine.o'[e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IVANA KIROLA and ELIZABETH ELFTMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ("the CITY"); GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Mayor; AARON PESKIN, in his official capacity as President of the Board of Supervisors; JAKE MCGOLDRICK, MICHELA ALIOTOPIER, ED JEW, CHRIS DALY, SEAN ELSBERND, BEVAN DUFTY, TOM AMMIANO, SOPHIE MAXWELL, ROSS MIRKARIMI, AND GERARDO SANDOVAL, in their official capacities as members of the Board of Supervisors, Defendants. Case No. C07-3685 SBA CLASS ACTION ORDER RE: MOTION TO REOPEN FACT DISCOVERY Trial Date: July 12, 2010

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MTN. TO REOPEN FACT DISCOVERY; CASE NO. C07-3685 SBA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to reopen the fact discovery period for an additional 30 days. Fact discovery closed on March 31, 2010, and plaintiffs filed their administrative motion on April 26, 2010. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and hereby DENIES plaintiffs' motion to reopen fact discovery. Discovery has already been extended three times in this case. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate good cause for this fourth request for additional fact discovery. With reasonable diligence, plaintiffs could have completed all necessary discovery within the 32-month fact discovery period in this case, including the five-week extension plaintiffs sought and the Court granted in February of this year, over the City's objection. Further, reopening discovery will cause prejudice to the City, inasmuch as the parties' pretrial submissions are due June 1, 2010 and any reopening of discovery would require further delays and expense. For these reasons, plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/10/10

_______________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE HON. SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MTN. TO REOPEN FACT DISCOVERY; CASE NO. C07-3685 SBA

1

c:\documents and settings\workstation\local settings\temp\notes06e812\00626013.doc