Brantley et al v. Maxwell-Jolly et al

Filing 318

ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL (Dkt. No. 309) AND DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY (Dkt. No. 316). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 9/30/2011. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 No. Civ. 11-4007 JSC ESTHER DARLING, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 TOBY DOUGLAS, et al., 15 ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL (Dkt. No. 309) AND DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY (Dkt. No. 316) Defendants. 16 17 / On July 22, 2011, the district court granted Defendants’ request to continue the July 18 26, 2011 hearing on Plaintiffs’ fully-briefed motion for a preliminary injunction. In addition 19 to continuing the hearing date, the court stated: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs have requested that, in the event the Court continues the motion, the Court authorize the parties to engage in limited discovery so that they will have current information concerning Defendants’ transition efforts. Plaintiffs are granted leave to conduct such limited discovery. Nonetheless, the Court encourages the parties to work cooperatively to provide relevant information to one another without resort to formal discovery, to the extent possible. (Dkt. No. 302 at 2 n.1.) Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Rule 30(b)(6) depositions in accordance with the July 22 order. This Court held a telephone hearing with the parties on September 23, 2011. Following that hearing, the parties met and conferred regarding the requested depositions and 1 agreed that Plaintiffs shall take the requested depositions on October 6 and/or October 7, 2 2011. Two matters, however, are still in dispute and were addressed at oral argument on 3 September 29, 2011. 4 First, Plaintiffs seek a 30(b)(6) deposition on the following topic (among others): 5 8 Regarding costs of transition and implementation, costs of developing additional waivers/waiver slots; costs of increased MSSP and PACE enrollment and capacity; additional IHSS hours of service; managed care costs, including capitation rates and enhancements; private case management; projected costs due to emergency room visits, acute hospitalizations and/or nursing facility placements; and costs to supplement payment to ADHC providers for assessments. 9 In light of Defendants’ representation that it does not presently have the information sought, 6 7 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel testimony on this topic is denied. The denial is without 11 prejudice to Plaintiffs renewing their motion should Defendants include such information in 12 their supplemental brief. 13 Second, Defendants seek to take “limited discovery to obtain recent and current 14 information relevant to plaintiffs’ claims that they face unnecessary institutionalization upon 15 discontinuation of the ADHC benefit.” (Dkt. No. 316 at 2:15-17.) In response Plaintiffs 16 have agreed to provide Defendants with each Plaintiff’s discharge summary as soon as they 17 are available and no later than the date their supplemental brief is due. Defendants’ request 18 for additional limited discovery is DENIED. Even assuming the district court’s July 22 19 order permitted Defendants as well as Plaintiffs to take discovery, Defendants’ request is 20 well beyond the scope of the limited discovery permitted by that order. The district court 21 permitted discovery only on “current information concerning Defendants’ transition efforts.” 22 (Dkt. No. 302 at 2 n.1.) The limited discovery sought by Defendants does not fall within that 23 category. Further, Defendants’ July 2011 request to continue the fully-briefed preliminary 24 injunction order sought (and received) supplemental briefing “to update the court on the 25 status of the transition efforts at that time.” (Dkt. No. 299 at 3.) Again, the information 26 Defendants request of Plaintiffs has nothing to do with the status of Defendants’ current 27 transition efforts. 28 2 1 Given the Court's determination that the discovery Defendants seek is outside the 2 scope of the district court's July 22 order, Defendants alternatively request permission to take 3 this limited discovery on the grounds it is relevant. Regardless of relevance, to allow such 4 discovery now would, in effect, re-open the entire motion. In fact, the district court allowed 5 supplemental briefing solely “to incorporate factual developments regarding Defendants’ 6 transition plan since the filing of the [preliminary injunction] motion.” (Dkt. No. 302 at 3:6- 7 8.) Defendants' application is therefore DENIED. To the extent, however, Plaintiffs’ 8 supplemental brief incorporates new facts about any of the Plaintiff’s circumstances, the 9 Court will reconsider its ruling on an expedited basis. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: September 30, 2011 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?