Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00389/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00389-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX LUKOVSKY, MUHAMMED KHAN,

LARRY MITCHELL, ANTONIO HUGGINS,

SAMSON ASRAT, ANATOLIY

ZOLOTAREV, and YEVGENIY

SKURATOVSKY,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL

TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, JOHN

SADORRA, RENATO SOLOMON,

VERNON CRAWLEY, MICHAEL ELLIS,

and DORIS LANIER,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-00389 WHA

DISCOVERY ORDER

Pursuant to today’s discovery conference, this order rules as follows:

1. The further deposition of plaintiff Muhammed Khan will occur in two further

sessions: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on August 9, 2006; and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on August 10,

2006. There will be permitted only one 10-minute break per deposition session.

2. The further deposition of Samson Asrat will occur from 8:00 a.m to 5:00 p.m. on

August 7, 2006. There will be permitted a one-hour break for lunch and three 10-minute breaks

during the deposition.

Case 3:05-cv-00389-WHA Document 157 Filed 07/21/06 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

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel Benay declared on the record that plaintiff Lukovsky does not

have the requested telephone records from 2003. Serious consequences will result if plaintiffs

suddenly have these records at trial.

4. Defendants’ request for further verification of interrogatory 7 is denied.

5. Plaintiffs are required to provide verifications of their answers to interrogatories

14 and 15 by noon on July 25, 2006.

6. The parties are deemed to have resolved their dispute with respect to plaintiff Khan’s

supplemental response to interrogatories 3 and 4.

7. The parties are deemed to have resolved their dispute with respect to plaintiff Asrat’s

supplemental response to interrogatory 6.

8. Defendants are required to file their motion for summary judgment by no later than

August 24, 2006. The motion is to be noticed on a regular 35-day track. No extra pages or

extra time is allowed for either side.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00389-WHA Document 157 Filed 07/21/06 Page 2 of 2