Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 369

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken AMENDING SCHEDULE and GRANTING ( 353 , 360 ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2015)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

TODD ASHKER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 09-5796 CW

v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

ORDER AMENDING
SCHEDULE and
GRANTING MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE
A SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEF(Docket Nos.
353 and 360)

11
12

Plaintiffs Todd Ashker, et al., have filed a motion for entry

13

of an amended scheduling order (Docket No. 353).

14

Governor Edmund G. Brown, et al., have filed an opposition.

15

addition, Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a

16

supplemental brief in support of their aforementioned motion

17

(Docket No. 360).

18

Defendants
In

In their scheduling amendment motion, Plaintiffs requested

19

an extension of time of one month to each deadline for disclosure

20

of identities and reports of expert witnesses and rebuttal expert

21

reports.

22

of expert discovery.

23

Judge Vadas’ order requiring Defendants to produce all outstanding

24

discovery by January 6, 2015, the number of weeks Plaintiffs had

25

to prepare expert reports decreased from nine weeks to less than

26

six weeks.

They also sought a two-week extension for the completion
Plaintiffs argued that, due to Magistrate

27

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are seeking a review of

28

Magistrate Judge Vadas’ order, in which he denied Plaintiffs’

1

similar request.

2

motion on its merits; rather he ruled that any further requests

3

for extensions of time had to be addressed to this Court

4

(“Plaintiffs’ proper course of action for an extension of those

5

deadlines is to raise their requests in a motion before the

6

district judge”).

7

However, Magistrate Judge Vadas did not deny the

Docket No. 352.

In their motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in
support of their motion to amend the schedule, Plaintiffs argue

9

that Defendants have not complied with Magistrate Judge Vadas’

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

order to produce all outstanding discovery by January 6, 2015.

11

Plaintiffs listed seven examples of documents and things

12

Defendants were ordered to produce but did not.

13

that Plaintiffs’ characterization of their compliance with the

14

discovery order is misleading.

Defendants argue

15

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of an amended

16

discovery schedule (Docket No. 353) and GRANTS leave to file the

17

proffered supplemental brief in support of their motion (Docket

18

No. 360).

19

witnesses and rebuttal expert reports shall be completed no later

20

than March 13, 2015 and April 15, 2015, respectively.

21

discovery shall be completed by May 29, 2015.

22

remain the same.

23

Disclosure of identities and reports of expert

Expert

All other dates

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated:

January 21, 2015

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

27
28
2