Ismael Jimenez et al v. David Y Tsai et al

Filing 96

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 94 , 95 Supplemental Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 2. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ISMAEL JIMENEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
v.

14
15

Case No.5:16-cv-04434-EJD (HRL)

DAVID Y TSAI, et al.,
Defendants.

16

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL
DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT
REPORT NO. 2
Re: Dkt. Nos. 94, 95

The outcome of a previous discovery dispute was an order by the presiding judge that

17
18

defendants were allowed 15 depositions, 5 more than what Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 provides as the usual

19

maximum. The presiding judge tasked this court to deal with any request for even more

20

depositions from defendants. This court ordered: “If defendants want more, they should bring

21

their request to this court in accordance with its Standing Order on Civil Discovery Disputes.”

22

(Dkt. 73). Ultimately, the defendants took the 15 allowed depositions and then, in a filing styled

23

“Supplemental Discovery Dispute Report No. 2,” asked this court for 4 more depositions. (Dkt.

24

94).

25

For the reasons set out in plaintiff’s “Objections and Opposition to Defendants’

26

Supplemental Discovery Dispute Report No. 2,” defendants’ request for further depositions is

27
28

1

denied. SO ORDERED.

2

Dated: October 6, 2017

3
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2