Kenney v. San Diego, City of et al
Filing
441
MINUTE ORDER: For the reasons stated on the record at the Oral Argument Hearing held on 9/8/2016 (Dkt # 438), the Court ruled on Plaintiff's ex parte motions to request a discovery schedule (Dkt # 401) and to compel discovery responses (Dkts # 4 00, 402, 410-21): Dkt # 400 - Granted; Dkt # 401 - Granted in that the Court held the requested Discovery Conference on 9/8/2016, and provided the discovery schedule; Dkt # 402 - Denied without prejudice; Dkt # 407 - Denied; Dkt # 410 - Duplicative o f Dkt # 402 (Denied without prejudice); Dkt # 411 - Denied without prejudice; Dkt # 412 - Denied without prejudice; Dkt # 413 - Denied without prejudice; Dkt # 414 - Denied without prejudice; Dkt # 415 - Denied without prejudice; Dkt # 416 - Denied w ithout prejudice; Dkt # 417 - Denied without prejudice; Dkt # 418 - Denied without prejudice; Dkt # 419 - Denied without prejudice; Dkt # 420 - Denied without prejudice; Dkt # 421 - Denied without prejudice. Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 9/19/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)
MINUTE ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case Name:
Kenney v. San Diego, City
of et al
Case No.:
13-cv-00248-WQH-JLB
Hon. Jill L. Burkhardt Ct. Deputy Roi-Ann Bressi Rptr. Tape: JLB16-2:02-2:43
For the reasons stated on the record at the Oral Argument Hearing held on
September 8, 2016 (ECF No. 438), the Court ruled on Plaintiff’s ex parte motions
to request a discovery schedule (ECF No. 401) and to compel discovery responses
(ECF Nos. 400, 402, 410–21) as follows:
ECF Motion Title
No.
400 Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Compel
Discovery Pursuant to Court Order ECF
385 “Substitutions”
401 Plaintiff’s Request, Pursuant to Local
Rule 16.1, For the Judicial Officer
Assigned to Supervise Discovery to
Provide a Discovery Schedule and/or
Hold a Discovery Conference
1
Court’s Ruling
Granted. Defendants have until
October 10, 2016, to make their
Rule 26 disclosures.
Granted in that the Court held the
requested Discovery Conference on
September 8, 2016, and provided
the following discovery schedule:
1) Responses to Plaintiff’s
discovery propounded on
June 27, 2016 are due
October 10, 2016.
2) Defendants may propound
contention interrogatories
and requests for production
of documents as to the eight
defendants recently
substituted in as Doe
defendants on the following
schedule:
a. By September 22, as
to the five who have
already been served;
and
Court’s Ruling
ECF Motion Title
No.
402
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses
to Special Interrogatories, Set 1 to Kevin
Armentano
407
Plaintiff Requests This Court Resend
Court Orders ECF 385 and 386 and All
Other Orders The Court Made
Concerning Its Various Post-MSJ
Rulings
2
b. Seven days from the
date of service as to
the three not yet
served (Steven Eraca,
David Mitchell, and
Craig Shumate).
Further, the parties have until
September 15, 2016, to file a joint
supplemental document setting
forth a single proposal (if the
parties are in agreement) or
multiple proposals as to any
additional dates in the schedule that
the parties believe there is good
cause to adjust.
Denied without prejudice. At the
time this discovery was
propounded, discovery had closed
and Plaintiff had neither sought nor
received leave of Court to reopen
discovery. Now that Plaintiff has
obtained leave to propound this
discovery, defendant has until
October 10, 2016, to respond.
Denied.
ECF Motion Title
No.
410 Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Compel
Extremely Belated Discovery Responses
to Special Interrogatories, Set 1, from
Defendant Armentano
411
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Compel
Extremely Belated Discovery Responses
to Special Interrogatories, Set 1, from
Defendant Eraca
412
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Compel
Extremely Belated Discovery Responses
to Special Interrogatories, Set 1, from
Defendant Koerber
413
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Compel
Extremely Belated Discovery Responses
to Special Interrogatories, Set 1, from
Defendant Milano
3
Court’s Ruling
Duplicative of ECF No. 402.
(Denied without prejudice. At the
time this discovery was
propounded, discovery had closed
and Plaintiff had neither sought nor
received leave of Court to reopen
discovery. Now that Plaintiff has
obtained leave to propound this
discovery, defendant has until
October 10, 2016, to respond.)
Denied without prejudice. At the
time this discovery was
propounded, discovery had closed
and Plaintiff had neither sought nor
received leave of Court to reopen
discovery. Now that Plaintiff has
obtained leave to propound this
discovery, defendant has until
October 10, 2016, to respond.
Denied without prejudice. At the
time this discovery was
propounded, discovery had closed
and Plaintiff had neither sought nor
received leave of Court to reopen
discovery. Now that Plaintiff has
obtained leave to propound this
discovery, defendant has until
October 10, 2016, to respond.
Denied without prejudice. At the
time this discovery was
propounded, discovery had closed
and Plaintiff had neither sought nor
received leave of Court to reopen
discovery. Now that Plaintiff has
obtained leave to propound this
discovery, defendant has until
October 10, 2016, to respond.
ECF Motion Title
No.
414 Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Compel
Extremely Belated Discovery Responses
to Special Interrogatories, Set 1, from
Defendant Mitchell
415
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Compel
Extremely Belated Discovery Responses
to Special Interrogatories, Set 1, from
Defendant Shumate
416
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Compel
Extremely Belated Discovery Responses
to Special Interrogatories, Set 1, from
Defendant Sainte-Agathe
417
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Compel
Extremely Belated Discovery Responses
to Special Interrogatories, Set 1, from
Defendant Valdez
4
Court’s Ruling
Denied without prejudice. At the
time this discovery was
propounded, discovery had closed
and Plaintiff had neither sought nor
received leave of Court to reopen
discovery. Now that Plaintiff has
obtained leave to propound this
discovery, defendant has until
October 10, 2016, to respond.
Denied without prejudice. At the
time this discovery was
propounded, discovery had closed
and Plaintiff had neither sought nor
received leave of Court to reopen
discovery. Now that Plaintiff has
obtained leave to propound this
discovery, defendant has until
October 10, 2016 to respond.
Denied without prejudice. At the
time this discovery was
propounded, discovery had closed
and Plaintiff had neither sought nor
received leave of Court to reopen
discovery. Now that Plaintiff has
obtained leave to propound this
discovery, defendant has until
October 10, 2016, to respond.
Denied without prejudice. At the
time this discovery was
propounded, discovery had closed
and Plaintiff had neither sought nor
received leave of Court to reopen
discovery. Now that Plaintiff has
obtained leave to propound this
discovery, defendant has until
October 10, 2016, to respond.
ECF Motion Title
No.
418 Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Compel
Responses to RFPs, Set 1, from
Defendant Armentano
419
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Compel
Responses to RFPs, Set 1, from
Defendant Koerber
420
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Compel
Responses to RFPs, Set 1, from
Defendant Mitchell
421
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Compel
Responses to RFPs, Set 1, from
Defendant Valdez
5
Court’s Ruling
Denied without prejudice. At the
time this discovery was
propounded, discovery had closed
and Plaintiff had neither sought nor
received leave of Court to reopen
discovery. Now that Plaintiff has
obtained leave to propound this
discovery, defendant has until
October 10, 2016, to respond.
Denied without prejudice. At the
time this discovery was
propounded, discovery had closed
and Plaintiff had neither sought nor
received leave of Court to reopen
discovery. Now that Plaintiff has
obtained leave to propound this
discovery, defendant has until
October 10, 2016, to respond.
Denied without prejudice. At the
time this discovery was
propounded, discovery had closed
and Plaintiff had neither sought nor
received leave of Court to reopen
discovery. Now that Plaintiff has
obtained leave to propound this
discovery, defendant has until
October 10, 2016, to respond.
Denied without prejudice. At the
time this discovery was
propounded, discovery had closed
and Plaintiff had neither sought nor
received leave of Court to reopen
discovery. Now that Plaintiff has
obtained leave to propound this
discovery, defendant has until
October 10, 2016, to respond.
Although Plaintiff’s declarations filed in support of his motions to compel include
requests for sanctions (ECF Nos. 410-4, 411-4, 412-4, 413-4, 414-4, 415-4, 416-4,
417-4, 418-4, 419-4, 420-4 and 421-4), no motions for sanctions are before the
Court. If the Court were to construe Plaintiff’s motions to compel as including
motions for sanctions, those motions would be denied. Defendants were within their
rights to refuse to respond to discovery that was propounded after the close of
discovery and in the absence of Plaintiff seeking and obtaining leave from the Court
to reopen discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 19, 2016
Initials: JLB
6
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?