Lawman v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 106

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 103 Motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment; granting in part and denying in part 104 Discovery Letter Brief.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GARY RICHARD LAWMAN,

Case No. 15-cv-01202-DMR

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
11

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
DISCOVERY LETTER

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. Nos. 103, 104
12
13

The court has reviewed the parties’ submissions regarding Defendants’ administrative

14

motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment on the question of probable cause

15

to arrest Plaintiff for trespassing. [Docket Nos. 103, 105.] The court does not typically permit

16

parties to file multiple Rule 56 motions. Defendants have not persuaded the court that they should

17

be given such an opportunity here. Defendants’ previous motion for summary judgment on this

18

point was unsuccessful because they provided a discovery response that was improper under the

19

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [See Docket No. 80 at 9.] Moreover, it is too close to trial to

20

permit a second motion. The parties’ pretrial submissions are due on May 6, 2016. Even if

21

Defendants were permitted to file a second Rule 56 motion today, there is inadequate time for

22

briefing, oral argument, and the court’s preparation of an order on the motion before the pretrial

23

process is in full swing. Accordingly, Defendants’ administrative motion is denied.

24

The court has also reviewed the parties March 24, 2016 joint discovery letter. [Docket No.

25

104.] The court denies Defendants’ request to strike the Dusenbury report. Plaintiff has shown

26

substantial justification for his late disclosure and the late disclosure is harmless. See Fed. R. Civ.

27

P. 37(c)(1). Plaintiff’s counsel notified defense counsel of his intent to serve a late expert

28

disclosure on March 15, 2016, just one week after the March 8, 2016 deadline to disclose experts.

1
2

Further, there is over one month left to conduct expert discovery.
The court orders Plaintiff to serve a supplemental report by Dusenbury by April 8, 2016,

3

which will mitigate any prejudice to Defendants caused by the late disclosure. In his supplemental

4

report, Dusenbury may not add new opinions, and must state his opinions and set forth the bases

5

for those opinions more fully than as set forth in the “summary” opinions contained in his initial

6

report. After April 8, 2016, Dusenbury may further supplement his report only to the extent the

7

supplementation is based on documents received from Defendants after April 8, 2016. Any

8

rebuttal report is due two weeks after service of the supplemental Dusenbury report. Defendants

9

may determine the order of depositions of the police practices experts.

10

S
UNIT
ED

R NIA

DERED
SO OR
______________________________________
IT IS

RT

15

ER

M. Ryu

H

16

onna
Judge D

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

LI

14

FO

Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge

A

13

Dated: March 31, 2016

NO

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

11

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C