O'Toole et al v. City of Antioch et al

Filing 90

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 89 Motion (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

SEAN O'TOOLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

v.
CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.,

No. C 11-1502 PJH
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

11
12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case have filed a motion for relief from a

14

nondispositive pretrial order of a Magistrate Judge. Specifically, plaintiffs seek relief from

15

the portion of Magistrate Judge James’ discovery order which held that “[p]laintiffs have not

16

shown that third party discovery is necessary without first exhausting discovery regarding

17

the named plaintiffs,” thereby limiting discovery at this stage of the case to the named

18

plaintiffs. See Dkt. 85 (October 15, 2014).

19

The court notes that Magistrate Judge James’ order did not foreclose the possibility

20

of third-party discovery, and in fact, the order expressly provides that “[i]f plaintiffs maintain

21

that discovery regarding nonparties is necessary after completion of this discovery, the

22

parties shall meet and confer and thereafter file a letter in compliance with the

23

undersigned’s Discovery Standing Order if they are unable to reach an agreement.”

24

In their motion, plaintiffs argue the relevance of third-party discovery, but do not

25

present any reason why such discovery is needed at the same time as plaintiff-related

26

discovery. Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for relief from Magistrate Judge

27

James’ discovery order.

28

1
2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 4, 2014

4

_________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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