Garedakis v. Brentwood Union School District

Filing 206

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 197 Motion for relief from nondispositive order; denying 199 Administrative Motion for leave to file surreply; denying oral motion for leave to supplement opposition with citations to evidence. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL GAREDAKIS, et al.,

9
10
11

Case No. 14-cv-04799-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’
ADMININSTRATIVE MOTIONS

BRENTWOOD UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

Before the court are plaintiffs’ motion for relief from a nondispositive order of the

15

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 197); plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a surreply in opposition to

16

defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 199); and an oral motion made by

17

plaintiffs’ counsel at the April 13, 2016 hearing on defendants’ motion for summary

18

judgment, seeking leave to supplement plaintiffs’ opposition to the summary judgment

19

motion, to provide citations to evidence.

20

First, with regard to the motion for relief from Judge Ryu’s order that psychological

21

and employment records of plaintiff Lawrence Gullo be produced pursuant to a subpoena

22

issued by defendants, the request is DENIED. The court is persuaded by defendants’

23

argument that they should be permitted to review the Gullo records with plaintiffs’ counsel

24

and meet and confer regarding whether any of the records are relevant to the issues

25

remaining in the case. However, defendants need not be provided access to the records

26

until after the court has issued its ruling on defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

27
28

Second, with respect to the motion for leave to file a surreply to respond to
defendants’ arguments regarding plaintiffs’ Exhibits 40, 47, and 48 (the declarations of

1

the non-party parents), the request is DENIED. The list of names and contact information

2

of parents whose children attended Dina Holder’s class or who complained about Dina

3

Holder was provided to plaintiffs on January 19, 2016. Plaintiffs filed the declarations of

4

Rebecca Bingham, Cynthia Ruiz, and Kimberly Jones in support of their reply to

5

defendants’ motion for summary judgment on March 23, 2016. They never disclosed the

6

three declarants as witnesses, despite having had the information in their possession for

7

more than two months.

8

Plaintiffs argue that their failure to disclose the witnesses should be excused.

9

Plaintiffs assert that because the contact information for the three witnesses was included
as part of the contact information for the more than 70 children who were in Holder’s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

class or whose parents complained about Holder, they were not required to disclose that

12

three parents out of this group would be submitting declarations in support of plaintiffs’

13

positions in this case. The court disagrees. Parties have an ongoing obligation to

14

supplement their disclosures made under Rule 26(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

15

Third, with regard to the motion for leave to supplement the opposition with

16

citations (page and line numbers) of evidence submitted in support of the opposition, the

17

request is DENIED because of the prejudice to defendants, who previously filed a reply

18

based on that opposition. Were the court to permit plaintiffs to supplement the opposition

19

with details that they should have included in the original opposition, the court would be

20

obligated to allow defendants to supplement their reply to take into account the new

21

citations.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: April 14, 2016

25
26

__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

27
28
2