United States of America et al v. The County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 263

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re Case Management and terminating 196 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to re-notice the motion pending court's decision as to whether further discovery will be permitted. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION UNITED STATES ex rel. DONNA M. McLEAN and THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel DONNA M. McLEAN, v. Plaintiffs, No. C05-01962 HRL ORDER RE CASE MANAGEMENT *E-FILED 1/23/2009*

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, KENNETH BORELLI, LAWRENCE GALLEGOS, EPIFANIO ("J.R.") REYNA, TANYA BEYERS, DR. DEE SCHAFFER, DR. TOMMIJEAN THOMAS, DR. RICHARD PERILLO and DOES 1-100, Defendants. /

Relator Donna McLean requests leave to conduct additional discovery as to the allegations of her Amendment to Complaint. She apparently wishes to propound several requests for admission, contention interrogatories and related document requests. (See Docket #223 at 16). However, she has previously represented that the Amendment to Complaint is merely a supplement of the allegations in the original complaint. And, indeed, the Amendment to Complaint says as much. Moreover, it appears that McLean has been actively conducting a host of discovery as to the subject matter of the Amendment to Complaint. As such, this court is disinclined to permit any further discovery.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Nevertheless, this court is willing to review McLean's proposed discovery requests to determine whether she should be permitted to pursue them. Accordingly, no later than February 6, 2009, McLean shall e-file her proposed discovery requests for this court's review. Defendants shall also have the opportunity to submit a response as to why McLean's proposed discovery should not be allowed or why and how it should be limited. Any such response shall be filed by February 20, 2009. Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment will be terminated, without prejudice to defendants to re-notice the motion following the court's decision as to whether further discovery on the allegations of the Amendment to Complaint will be permitted. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2009 HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5:05-cv-1962 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Donna M McLean [e-mail] Joan Eve Trimble [e-mail], [e-mail] Melissa R. Kiniyalocts [e-mail] Orley Brandt Caudill , Jr [e-mail], [e-mail] Richard Augustus Swenson [e-mail], [e-mail] Sara McLean [e-mail] Sara Winslow [e-mail], [e-mail] Stephen H. Schmid [e-mail] Virginia Stewart Alspaugh [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] William C. Dresser [e-mail] Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. Copy of order mailed to: Julia Ann Clayton California Attorney General's Office 455 Golden Gate Avenue # 11000 San Francisco , CA 94102-7004

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3