Kayleigh Slusher et al v. City of Napa et al

Filing 83

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 69 Discovery Motion without prejudice. The hearing set for April 29, 2016 is VACATED. Any renewed motion or further discovery dispute shall be raised in manner consistent with the order at docket entry 34 . No further filing may be captioned as "joint" unless all parties to the case join in filing. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KAYLEIGH SLUSHER, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-02394-SBA (JCS)

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY
MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

9
10

CITY OF NAPA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 69.

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Discovery matters in this action have been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for

13

decision. See Order Referring Case (dkt. 28). Plaintiffs and certain defendants including and

14

associated with the City of Napa (the “City Defendants”) filed a “joint” motion for the production

15

of documents and for forensic examination of evidence. See Mot. (dkt. 69). Other defendants

16

including and associated with the County of Napa (the “County Defendants”) oppose the motion,

17

and seek to stay the case pending resolution of related criminal proceedings in state court. See

18

Opp’n (dkt. 74). The parties stipulated to a briefing schedule for the County Defendants’

19

forthcoming motion to stay—to be heard by the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong, the

20

presiding judge in this case—with replies to be filed no later than June 3, 2016, and Judge

21

Armstrong endorsed that schedule. See Stip. & Order (dkt. 79). No hearing date has been set for

22

the motion to stay. Id. Plaintiffs oppose a stay of the case, but the City Defendants intend to join

23

the County Defendants’ motion. See Pls.’ Reply (dkt. 76); City Reply (dkt. 81). The City

24

Defendants propose that the undersigned continue the hearing on the discovery motion until after

25

resolution of the motion to stay, and deny the discovery motion without prejudice if the case is

26

stayed. See City Reply.

27
28

Whether the case should be stayed is a question for Judge Armstrong to address, and the
undersigned expresses no opinion on that matter. Nor does the undersigned express an opinion at

1

this time on the merits of the pending discovery motion. Pending Judge Armstrong’s decision on

2

the forthcoming motion to stay, however, the discovery motion is DENIED WITHOUT

3

PREJUDICE and the hearing set for April 29, 2016 is VACATED.

4

If the motion to stay is denied in full or in part, and Plaintiffs and/or the City Defendants

5

wish to renew their discovery motion, the parties are instructed to follow the procedures for

6

resolution of discovery disputes set forth in the order dated September 16, 2015, appearing as

7

docket entry 34. Further filings directed to the undersigned magistrate judge shall be captioned as

8

“joint” if and only if all parties to the case join in filing.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 18, 2016
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2