Steshenko v. McKay et al
Filing
312
ORDER RE BRIEFING OF CHALLENGES TO DISCOVERY RULINGS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/9/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
GREGORY NICHOLAS STESHENKO,
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
No. C 09-5543 RS
ORDER RE BRIEFING OF
CHALLENGES TO DISCOVERY
RULINGS
15
16
THOMAS MCKAY, et al.,
17
Defendants.
18
____________________________________/
19
20
Plaintiff and the College Defendants each seek review of discovery rulings made by the
21
22
assigned magistrate judge on April 25, 2012. Plaintiff originally filed what he entitled as “notices
23
of appeal,” asserting that he would file “appellate briefs” within 14 days. Plaintiff has apparently
24
subsequently become aware that the appropriate procedural mechanism for challenging a non-
25
dispositive pre-trial order of a magistrate judge is to file a motion in compliance with Civil Local
26
Rule 72-2, and he filed such a motion on May 7, 2012 (Dkt. No. 298).1 The docket entry for that
27
1
28
That motion exceeds the page limits imposed by Rule 72-2. While that violation will be
disregarded in this instance, plaintiff is cautioned to comply with the rule in any future motions.
1
motion purports to set a due date for responsive and reply briefing. Those dates should be
2
disregarded, as Rule 72-2 provides that responses are not required unless specifically ordered.
3
Plaintiff additionally filed a noticed motion purporting to challenge portions of the
4
magistrate judge’s rulings as “dispositive,” within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C.
5
§ 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 72-3 (Dkt. No. 298). Notwithstanding plaintiff’s attempt to
6
characterize the ruling as “effectively” preventing him from pursuing certain of his claims, the
7
challenged order is only a non-dispositive ruling on discovery matters. Accordingly, the hearing
8
date of June 14, 2012 plaintiff noticed for that motion is vacated, and the briefing schedule set out
9
in the docket entry should be disregarded. Instead, that motion shall be deemed to have been
brought under Rule 72-2 as a challenge to a non-dispositive ruling. Defendants shall file a
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
response to both Docket No. 298 and No. 299, not to exceed 10 pages, no later than May 25,
12
2012. Plaintiff’s challenges to the magistrate judge’s rulings then will be taken under submission
13
without further briefing or argument.
14
The College Defendants’ challenge to the discovery rulings, (1) seeks clarification as to
15
the scope of their obligation to produce documents under the order, and (2) asserts that the
16
magistrate judge did not rule on a motion seeking additional time for taking plaintiff’s deposition.
17
The docket indicates that the College defendants’ request for additional time to depose plaintiff
18
was filed as part of a document entitled as a “joinder,” and that it was not entered into the ECF
19
system as a motion (Dkt. No. 185). It is counsel’s obligation to ensure that motions are properly
20
entered as such in the ECF system. In any event, because the College defendants seek
21
clarification as to the intended scope of the order and a ruling on an issue that was not addressed,
22
their concerns should be presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance. Accordingly, the
23
College defendants’ motion (Docket 297) is denied without prejudice.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
28
Dated: 5/9/12
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?