Lawman v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01202

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying {{103}} Motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment; granting in part and denying in part {{104}} Discovery Letter Brief.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 GARY RICHARD LAWMAN, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01202-DMR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' 9 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN LEAVE TO FILE SECOND MOTION 10 FRANCISCO, et al., FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISCOVERY LETTER 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 103, 104 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 The court has reviewed the parties' submissions regarding Defendants' administrative 14 motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment on the question of probable cause 15 to arrest Plaintiff for trespassing. [Docket Nos. 103, 105.] The court does not typically permit 16 parties to file multiple Rule 56 motions. Defendants have not persuaded the court that they should 17 be given such an opportunity here. Defendants' previous motion for summary judgment on this 18 point was unsuccessful because they provided a discovery response that was improper under the 19 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [See Docket No. 80 at 9.] Moreover, it is too close to trial to 20 permit a second motion. The parties' pretrial submissions are due on May 6, 2016. Even if 21 Defendants were permitted to file a second Rule 56 motion today, there is inadequate time for 22 briefing, oral argument, and the court's preparation of an order on the motion before the pretrial 23 process is in full swing. Accordingly, Defendants' administrative motion is denied. 24 The court has also reviewed the parties March 24, 2016 joint discovery letter. [Docket No. 25 104.] The court denies Defendants' request to strike the Dusenbury report. Plaintiff has shown 26 substantial justification for his late disclosure and the late disclosure is harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. 27 P. 37(c)(1). Plaintiff's counsel notified defense counsel of his intent to serve a late expert 28 disclosure on March 15, 2016, just one week after the March 8, 2016 deadline to disclose experts. 1 Further, there is over one month left to conduct expert discovery. 2 The court orders Plaintiff to serve a supplemental report by Dusenbury by April 8, 2016, 3 which will mitigate any prejudice to Defendants caused by the late disclosure. In his supplemental 4 report, Dusenbury may not add new opinions, and must state his opinions and set forth the bases 5 for those opinions more fully than as set forth in the "summary" opinions contained in his initial 6 report. After April 8, 2016, Dusenbury may further supplement his report only to the extent the 7 supplementation is based on documents received from Defendants after April 8, 2016. Any 8 rebuttal report is due two weeks after service of the supplemental Dusenbury report. Defendants 9 may determine the order of depositions of the police practices experts. ISTRIC 10 TES D TC 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. TA O S U ED RT D RDERE 12 Dated: March 31, 2016 UNIT Northern District of California S O O United States District Court 13 IT IS ______________________________________ R NIA Donna M. Ryu 14 United States Magistrate Judge M. Ryu NO onna Judge D FO 15 RT LI 16 ER H A N C 17 D IS T IC T OF R 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2