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)

Download PDF
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

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?