Kayleigh Slusher et al v. City of Napa et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02394

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying {{69}} Discovery Motion without prejudice. The hearing set for April 29, 2016 is VACATED. Any renewed motion or further discovery dispute shall be raised in manner consistent with the order at docket entry {{34}}. No further filing may be captioned as "joint" unless all parties to the case join in filing. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 KAYLEIGH SLUSHER, et al., 7 Case No. 15-cv-02394-SBA (JCS) Plaintiffs, 8 v. ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY 9 MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE CITY OF NAPA, et al., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 69. Defendants. 11 12 Discovery matters in this action have been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for Northern District of California United States District Court 13 decision. See Order Referring Case (dkt. 28). Plaintiffs and certain defendants including and 14 associated with the City of Napa (the "City Defendants") filed a "joint" motion for the production 15 of documents and for forensic examination of evidence. See Mot. (dkt. 69). Other defendants 16 including and associated with the County of Napa (the "County Defendants") oppose the motion, 17 and seek to stay the case pending resolution of related criminal proceedings in state court. See 18 Opp'n (dkt. 74). The parties stipulated to a briefing schedule for the County Defendants' 19 forthcoming motion to stay—to be heard by the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong, the 20 presiding judge in this case—with replies to be filed no later than June 3, 2016, and Judge 21 Armstrong endorsed that schedule. See Stip. & Order (dkt. 79). No hearing date has been set for 22 the motion to stay. Id. Plaintiffs oppose a stay of the case, but the City Defendants intend to join 23 the County Defendants' motion. See Pls.' Reply (dkt. 76); City Reply (dkt. 81). The City 24 Defendants propose that the undersigned continue the hearing on the discovery motion until after 25 resolution of the motion to stay, and deny the discovery motion without prejudice if the case is 26 stayed. See City Reply. 27 Whether the case should be stayed is a question for Judge Armstrong to address, and the 28 undersigned expresses no opinion on that matter. Nor does the undersigned express an opinion at 1 this time on the merits of the pending discovery motion. Pending Judge Armstrong's decision on 2 the forthcoming motion to stay, however, the discovery motion is DENIED WITHOUT 3 PREJUDICE and the hearing set for April 29, 2016 is VACATED. 4 If the motion to stay is denied in full or in part, and Plaintiffs and/or the City Defendants 5 wish to renew their discovery motion, the parties are instructed to follow the procedures for 6 resolution of discovery disputes set forth in the order dated September 16, 2015, appearing as 7 docket entry 34. Further filings directed to the undersigned magistrate judge shall be captioned as 8 "joint" if and only if all parties to the case join in filing. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: April 18, 2016 11 ______________________________________ JOSEPH C. SPERO 12 Chief Magistrate 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