Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 398

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS re 323 , 341 , 342 , 354 , 386 , 389 , 390 , 391 , 392 , 393 , 394 . Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on December 3, 2015 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12

15
16
17

(Re: Docket Nos. 323, 341, 354, 386, 389,
390, 391, 392, 393, 394)

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

11

14

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS

v.

9

13

Case No. 13-cv-00228-RMW

Plaintiffs Adil and Roda Hiramanek have filed a total of ten discovery motions scheduled
for hearing on four separate dates over the next six weeks.1 Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), the court
finds that all of these motions are suitable for disposition without oral argument.2 The hearings for
these motions are vacated.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 3, 2015

18

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See Docket Nos. 323, 341, 354, 386, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394.

2

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b) provides that a motion may be determined without oral argument “[i]n the
Judge’s discretion.” Plaintiffs previously have argued that deciding a motion without an oral
hearing denies the movants their day in court. See, e.g., Docket No. 334. However, “it is well
settled that oral argument is not necessary to satisfy due process.” Docket No. 396 at 6 (quoting
Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 196 n.4 (9th Cir. 1992)). The court will rule on these motions after
fully considering the parties’ arguments in their papers.
1
Case No. 13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS