Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 340

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE MOTION FOR MULTIPLE RELIEF re 323 by Judge Paul S. Grewal on October 23, 2015 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2015) Modified on 10/23/2015 (psglc2, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9

RICHARD LOFTUS, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

14
15
16
17

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE
MOTION FOR MULTIPLE RELIEF
(Re: Docket No. 323)

10

13

Case No. 13-cv-00228-RMW

Before the court is yet another ex parte motion by Plaintiff Adil Hiramanek in which he
seeks several forms of relief for alleged discovery recalcitrance by all Defendants.1 As it did with
his previous ex parte motion for multiple relief,2 the court finds that all of Hiramanek’s requested
relief either is unwarranted or belongs more appropriately in a noticed discovery motion—a
motion to compel, a motion for a protective order or a motion for sanctions. Accordingly, the
court will hear the motion on a regular briefing schedule. Defendants’ oppositions, if any, are due

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See Docket No. 323. Plaintiff Roda Hiramanek joins in this motion. See Docket No. 324. In
particular, Plaintiffs seek an order that: (1) imposes a default or evidentiary sanction in response to
Defendants’ alleged failure to appear at depositions or produce sufficient documents; (2) limits
evidence, closes discovery or strikes pleadings in response to Defendants’ alleged concealment;
(3) requires Defendants to serve Adil and Roda Hiramanek separate copies of documents; (4)
requires Defendants Plett, McChristian and Polumbus to produce unredacted versions of certain
documents; (5) requires that all privileged discovery from Plaintiffs be sealed, blocked or
narrowed; (6) overrules certain objections that some Defendants have raised to Plaintiffs’ requests;
(7) requires Defendants to procure stenographic reporters for all further depositions; (8) imposes
certain conditions on Defendants’ counsel during depositions and (9) precludes all depositions
until Defendants submit to their noticed depositions and complete meet and confer on multiple
open issues.
2

See Docket No. 327 at 4.

1
Case No.13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR MULTIPLE RELIEF

1
2

on November 3. Hiramanek’s reply, if any, is due on November 10.
Any other discovery motions, from any party, also will be briefed on the court’s regular

3

schedule pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-2(a). Any party may file a separate motion to shorten time, but

4

the party moving to shorten time must comply with Civ. L.R. 6-3, and the court will deny the

5

motion unless the movant demonstrates exceptional circumstances. The court will hear arguments

6

on Hiramanek’s instant motion—and on any further discovery motions for which all papers have

7

been filed by December 4, 2015—on December 8, 2015.

8

SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: October 23, 2015

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

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

2
Case No.13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR MULTIPLE RELIEF