Steshenko v. McKay et al
Filing
487
ORDER by Judge Seeborg DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES 431 , DENYING MOTION TO ALTER PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY MOTIONS 477 , CONTINUING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS 443 , 447 , 450 , 454 , 459 AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, AND VACATING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE. (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
SAN JOSE DIVISION
8
No. C 09-5543 RS
9
GREGORY NICHOLAS STESHENKO,
Plaintiff,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
v.
THOMAS MCKAY, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROPOUND
ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES,
DENYING MOTION TO ALTER
PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY
MOTIONS, CONTINUING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
AND CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, AND VACATING
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND
TRIAL DATE
____________________________________/
1. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), plaintiff Gregory Steshenko’s motion for leave to
18
serve additional interrogatories (Dkt. No. 431)is suitable for disposition without oral argument, and
19
the hearing set for October 4, 2012 is vacated. Although the body of the motion included a request
20
for a ruling “as soon as practicable,” it was set for hearing on October 4, 2012 when filed and was
21
not accompanied by any request under Civil Local Rule 6-3 to shorten time, such that it would
22
receive consideration on an expedited basis. As the existing discovery cut-off is October 5, 2012,
23
the motion is therefore untimely, as no additional interrogatories could be propounded sufficiently
24
in advance of that cut-off even if relief from the numerical limit were granted. See Civil Local Rule
25
37-3 (“Discovery requests that call for responses or depositions after the applicable discovery cut-
26
off are not enforceable . . . .”). The motion is therefore denied on that basis.
27
28
Even if the motion were not untimely, or were construed as including a request for relief
from the existing cut-off, it would still be denied. Steshenko asserts that he needs additional
1
interrogatories in light of his inability to take discovery by deposition. While that contention is not
2
implausible,1 he has failed to make the required showing with specificity that additional
3
interrogatories are warranted, which would include at least some description of the interrogatories
4
he has already propounded, and perhaps more critically, compliance with Civil Local Rule 33-3.
5
(“A motion for leave to propound more interrogatories than permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 must be
6
accompanied by a memorandum which sets forth each proposed additional interrogatory and
7
explains in detail why it is necessary to propound the additional questions.”).
All that said, the parties are aware that several matters are now pending that may affect
8
9
when, how, and if this case proceeds to trial. In light of those uncertainties, Steshenko is directed
not to seek relief from the existing discovery cut-off at this juncture. In the event this litigation
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
ultimately goes forward, including Steshenko’s deposition, he may apply for the right to propound
12
additional discovery, and any such request will be evaluated in light of the circumstances then
13
existing and the showing of good cause he makes.
2. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), Steshenko’s motion “seeking a court order removing
14
15
restrictions on discovery motions” (Dkt. No. 477) is suitable for disposition without oral argument,
16
and the hearing set for October 25, 2012 is vacated. Steshenko challenges a procedural order
17
entered by the assigned magistrate judge in light of the exceptionally large number of discovery
18
motions filed by the parties during the course of this action. The magistrate judge’s order is well-
19
within his discretion and authority to manage the docket. Neither Steshenko’s dissatisfaction with
20
the timing of responses to letters he has subsequently filed with the magistrate judge, nor the fact
21
that the defendants were permitted to file a motion, support the relief he requests. The motion is
22
denied.
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Defendants’ argument that Steshenko has not been prevented from taking depositions is not
dispositive. While defendants are correct that Steshenko has at all times had the legal right to take
depositions, he has claimed that he lacks the financial resources to do so. The record is clear that he
pursued various strategies in an attempt to address that situation. While his efforts may have lacked
a legal basis, it is also apparent that he only recently became subjectively aware that he would not,
as a practical matter, be able to pursue discovery through taking depositions.
2
1
3. The hearing on the pending motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 443, 447, 450,
2
454, and 459), and the further Case Management Conference, is continued to November 1, 2012 at
3
1:30 p.m. The pretrial conference presently set for November 1, 2012 and the trial date are vacated.
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated: September 21, 2012
8
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?