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).

Download PDF
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

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?