Estate of Amilcar Perez Lopez et al v. Suhr et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01846

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. TEMPORARILY STAYING DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY RE {{20}}.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, et 7 al., Case No. 15-cv-01846-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER TEMPORARILY STAYING DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 20 10 GREG SUHR, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Pending before the Court is a motion to stay discovery and disclosures in this matter, filed 14 by Defendants Police Chief Greg Suhr, the City and County of San Francisco, Officer Craig Tiffe, 15 and Officer Eric Reboli (collectively, "Defendants"). Dkt. No. 20. Plaintiffs Estate of Amilcar 16 Lopez, Margarita Lopez Perez, and Juan Perez (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed an opposition on 17 October 2, 2015, Dkt. No. 25, and Defendants replied, Dkt No. 27. The Court held a hearing on 18 the motion on October 29, 2015, at which counsel for both parties submitted argument. 19 As discussed with the parties at the hearing, the Court hereby orders disclosures and 20 discovery in this case STAYED for 60 days, calculated from the date of the hearing, through 21 December 29, 2015. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; see also Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 22 F.3d 322, 324-25 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court further ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to 23 determine if there are any materials they can informally exchange during the pendency of the stay. 24 The parties are ordered to appear at a further case management conference on December 25 29, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. At the hearing, the parties should be prepared to discuss the status of both 26 the San Francisco Police Department's investigation and, to the extent known, the San Francisco 27 District Attorney's Office investigation into the officer-involved shooting that is the subject matter 28 of this litigation. The Court will want to discuss: (1) whether the investigations have been 1 completed; (2) if they have not, a good faith estimate as to when those investigations will be 2 completed; (3) whether the parties have met and conferred as ordered; and (4) whether the parties 3 have exchanged, or plan to exchange, any materials as a result of their meet and confer. 4 Defendants need not renew their motion upon expiration of the stay. The Court will notify 5 the parties at the December 29 hearing if it requires supplemental briefing regarding whether to 6 extend the stay. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: November 9, 2015 11 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 12 United States District Judge Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2