Gaspar Physical Therapy, Inc. et al v. Roberts et al

Filing 55

ORDER: The requested discovery is outside the scope of Judge Hayes' February 9, 2018 order. Plaintiffs' motion (ECF No. 48 ) is Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 06/13/2018. (ajs)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9

Gaspar Physical Therapy, Inc., et al.,
Plaintiff,

Case No.: 17-cv-02051-WQH-JLB
ORDER

v.
David W. "Dave" Roberts, et al.
Defendants.

[ECF No. 48]

10
11
12

Having reviewed the papers before the Court, including Plaintiffs’ Motion seeking

13

leave to conduct additional discovery for purposes of opposing Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP

14

motion (ECF No. 48), and Defendants’ opposition thereto (ECF No. 50), the Court

15

DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion.1

16

Plaintiffs’ motion is essentially a motion for reconsideration of the February 9, 2018

17

order issued by District Judge William Q. Hayes. In that order, Judge Hayes held that

18

“discovery must be permitted,” but “only if the[] [requests for discovery] seek information

19

that (1) is in the Defendants’ exclusive control and (2) may be highly probative of issues

20

on which Plaintiffs must produce evidence in order to defeat the Anti-SLAPP Motion.”

21

(ECF No. 27.) That order defined the bounds of the Anti-SLAPP-related discovery granted

22

in this case. Plaintiffs could have moved for reconsideration of that order. They did not.

23

This Court held a discovery conference on May 14, 2018 to discuss the same

24

discovery disputes that are at issue in Plaintiffs’ Motion. (ECF No. 44.) In setting the

25

briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion, this Court advised Plaintiffs to put in their moving

26
27
1

28

In so ruling, the parties should move forward with the agreed upon discovery, including the timely
deposition of Dave Roberts and the subpoena/deposition of Pacific Printing.
1
17-cv-02051-WQH-JLB

1

papers how the disputed discovery conforms to the previous Orders in this case. Plaintiffs

2

did not.

3

This Court finds that the discovery sought is outside the scope of the February 9,

4

2018 order issued by Judge Hayes. Plaintiffs emphasize that allowable discovery includes

5

discovery that is in the exclusive control of two defendants: Dave Roberts, and individual,

6

and RE-ELECT SUPERVISOR DAVE ROBERTS, a corporation or other form of entity.

7

(ECF No. 48-1 at 9.) Yet, Plaintiffs do not demonstrate how the additional discovery they

8

seek is within either defendant’s exclusive control. Further, based on the current record,

9

the Court is not persuaded that there are significant issues of spoliation that warrant an

10
11
12
13
14

expansion of Judge Hayes’ order.
This Court concludes that the requested discovery is outside the scope of Judge
Hayes’ February 9, 2018 order. Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 48) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 13, 2018

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17-cv-02051-WQH-JLB