Santiago v. Brennan

Filing 65

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS CONCERNING DISCOVERY, APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MASTER, ENTRY OF DEFAULT, AND DECLARATION OF PERJURY. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/16/2020. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WILLIE ROMERO SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, 8 vs. 9 10 Northern District of California ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS CONCERNING DISCOVERY, APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MASTER, ENTRY OF DEFAULT, AND DECLARATION OF PERJURY LOUIS DEJOY, United States Postmaster General, 11 United States District Court Case No.: 20-CV-1571 YGR Defendant. DKT. NOS. 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61 12 Plaintiff Willie R. Santiago has filed a new series of motions and miscellaneous filings, some 13 14 of which appear to replicate motions the Court previously ruled on and some of which raise new 15 issues. 16 With respect to the motions concerning review of affidavits, trial setting, or evidence to be 17 viewed by a jury (Dkt. Nos. 38, 43, 45), as previously indicated by the Court, such requests are also 18 premature and are DENIED. 19 20 21 With respect to the motions at Docket Nos. 42 and 61, requesting appointment of a special master and a medical expert, those requests are DENIED for failure to establish a reason for doing so. With respect to the motions concerning discovery, and plaintiff’s filings appearing to be 22 discovery requests (Dkt. Nos. 38, 47, 52, 54, 60), those motions are DENIED as premature. Plaintiff 23 must serve discovery on the party required to answer, not file discovery questionnaires with the 24 Court. Plaintiff must also allow the responding party sufficient time under the Federal Rules to 25 respond to those requests before seeking Court intervention to compel a response. The Court further 26 notes that it has stayed discovery until defendant(s) have filed an answer in this matter, that is, until 27 the Court has resolved any motions to dismiss plaintiff’s current complaint. 28 1 With respect to the motions requesting the Court declare that certain persons guilty of perjury 2 (Dkt. Nos. 50, 55), the motions are DENIED. The Court is not in a position to make determinations 3 of fact, much less determinations of guilt, with respect to any statements not before it. 4 With respect to the motions to enter a default or to declare that the motion to dismiss was not 5 filed timely (Dkt. Nos. 46, 59), the motions are DENIED. Plaintiff is incorrect in his calculations of 6 the time by which defendants were required to respond. Plaintiff asked for and was given leave to 7 file an amended complaint, relieving defendant from the obligation to answer his original complaint. 8 Plaintiff did so on September 1, 2020, and defendant timely and properly filed a motion to dismiss in 9 response to the Amended Complaint. The Court has, by separate order, granted that motion to Northern District of California dismiss and given plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Defendant may respond to 11 United States District Court 10 that Second Amended Complaint with an answer or with a proper motion to dismiss. No default 12 may properly be entered at this time. 13 14 15 16 17 18 The motion at Docket No. 44 to grant an extension of time is DENIED AS MOOT and as having been addressed by the Court’s prior Order. This terminates Docket Nos. 43, 44, 46, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: October 16, 2020 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?