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)

Download PDF
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?