Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04632/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04632-18/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID

TRANSIT DISTRICT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 WILLIAM D. SPENCER et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-04632 SI

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

COMPEL ADEQUATE

INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

On September 28, 2006, plaintiff San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (“BART”)

submitted a letter brief to the Court seeking an order compelling adequate responses to a set of

interrogatories served on defendants F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc. (“FWS”) and Brisbane Mechanical

Company (“BMC”) in January 2006. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion as untimely. 

Civil Local Rule 26-2 provides, in pertinent part: “[N]o motions to compel fact discovery may

be filed more than 7 court days after the fact discovery cut-off . . . . Discovery requests that call for

responses or depositions after the applicable discovery cut-off are not enforceable, except by order of

the Court for good cause shown.” C.L. Rule 26-2. By stipulated order, on August 29, 2006, the parties

extended the cut-off for non-expert discovery to September 14, 2006. See August 29, 2006 Order at 2

(Docket No. 75). Based on this cut-off date, pursuant to Local Rule 26-2, the deadline for any motions

to compel was September 25, 2006. BART presents no argument to support a finding of good cause for

bringing its motion three days after this deadline. BART received the final set of amended responses

from FWS and BMC on August 16, 2006. See BART Letter Br., Exhs. 10 & 11. BART thus had ample

opportunity to meet and confer, and bring its motion, before the September 25, 2006 deadline. 

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 131 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES BART’s motion

to compel adequate interrogatory responses (Docket No. 94).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 131 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 2