Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-69/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

)

v. )

)

 ) 

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

CV F 02 6583 AWI SMS

ORDER DIRECTING THE FILING OF

BRIEFS, INCLUDING STATUS REPORT,

CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL (DOCS. 679-680)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE

DISCOVERY HEARING (DOC. 707)

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

On February 29, 2008, the Court held a hearing on

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and Defendant’s ex parte

application for a continuance of the hearing in order to permit

briefing. Plaintiffs Terry and Sharon Hamilton appeared on their

own behalf by telephone, and Donald Pool appeared on behalf of

Defendants.

The Court detailed its position on the scope of the

application before the Court, and it was anticipated by all that

a disc or transcript of the hearing could serve as a record of

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 715 Filed 02/29/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

the Court’s position. 

The Court reviewed in detail the pertinent orders of Judge

Ishii and noted that Judge Ishii had ruled that discovery was

closed; further, no other motions to compel, motions pursuant to

Fed. Rule Civ. P. 56(f), or other proceedings pursuant to the

applicable rules had been brought concerning other discovery

matters. Thus, the matter that the Court considered pending

before it was the question of the deposition of Suzanne Conry and

any related issues concerning the parties’ agreements concerning

such deposition (existence of an agreement, facts concerning any

consideration for the agreement, whether the agreement was

binding, any breach thereof); the Court requested briefing

concerning the relevance or potential relevance of deposition

testimony of, or other evidence sought from, Conroy with respect

to each of the claims remaining in this action. Further, the

Court asked the parties to address what the harm or effect on the

case of not having the deposition would be. The Court suggested

that a declaration concerning Conry’s position regarding

testifying could also be useful.

The Court stated that it did not intend to award any

sanctions. The Court stated that there would be no informal

discovery telephonic conferences or other informal discovery

proceedings in the case in the future; all discovery matters

would proceed by motion and on the record. 

The Court reminded the parties that even if it were

ultimately to grant Plaintiff’s motion, it did not have

jurisdiction to compel a non-party in Colorado to appear for a

deposition, and that any such application would have to be

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 715 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

brought in the applicable district court in Colorado.

The Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application to

continue the discovery hearing in part and denied it in part. The

Court ordered briefing as follows: Plaintiffs’ brief in support

of the motion to compel must be filed on or before March 31,

2008. Defendant’s opposition must be filed no later than April

18, 2008. Plaintiffs’ reply must be filed no later than May 2,

2008. The hearing was continued to May 30, 2008. 

The Court has determined that it would be helpful to have

the parties address the present status of the case, and

specifically, exactly what parties (persons and entities) remain

in the suit, and what claims remain.

Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Defendant in its opposition

to include a brief status report concerning these matters;

Plaintiff may address Defendant’s status report in its reply

brief if Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant’s position.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 715 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 3