Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228-42/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

Case No.13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR MULTIPLE RELIEF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICHARD LOFTUS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE 

MOTION FOR MULTIPLE RELIEF

(Re: Docket No. 323)

Before the court is yet another ex parte motion by Plaintiff Adil Hiramanek in which he 

seeks several forms of relief for alleged discovery recalcitrance by all Defendants.1 As it did with 

his previous ex parte motion for multiple relief,

2

the court finds that all of Hiramanek’s requested 

relief either is unwarranted or belongs more appropriately in a noticed discovery motion—a 

motion to compel, a motion for a protective order or a motion for sanctions. Accordingly, the 

court will hear the motion on a regular briefing schedule. Defendants’ oppositions, if any, are due 

 

1

See Docket No. 323. Plaintiff Roda Hiramanek joins in this motion. See Docket No. 324. In 

particular, Plaintiffs seek an order that: (1) imposes a default or evidentiary sanction in response to 

Defendants’ alleged failure to appear at depositions or produce sufficient documents; (2) limits 

evidence, closes discovery or strikes pleadings in response to Defendants’ alleged concealment; 

(3) requires Defendants to serve Adil and Roda Hiramanek separate copies of documents; (4) 

requires Defendants Plett, McChristian and Polumbus to produce unredacted versions of certain 

documents; (5) requires that all privileged discovery from Plaintiffs be sealed, blocked or 

narrowed; (6) overrules certain objections that some Defendants have raised to Plaintiffs’ requests; 

(7) requires Defendants to procure stenographic reporters for all further depositions; (8) imposes 

certain conditions on Defendants’ counsel during depositions and (9) precludes all depositions 

until Defendants submit to their noticed depositions and complete meet and confer on multiple 

open issues.

2

See Docket No. 327 at 4.

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 340 Filed 10/23/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR MULTIPLE RELIEF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

on November 3. Hiramanek’s reply, if any, is due on November 10.

Any other discovery motions, from any party, also will be briefed on the court’s regular

schedule pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-2(a). Any party may file a separate motion to shorten time, but 

the party moving to shorten time must comply with Civ. L.R. 6-3, and the court will deny the 

motion unless the movant demonstrates exceptional circumstances. The court will hear arguments 

on Hiramanek’s instant motion—and on any further discovery motions for which all papers have 

been filed by December 4, 2015—on December 8, 2015.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 340 Filed 10/23/15 Page 2 of 2