Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01800/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01800-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH M. GREGORY,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-1800 PJH (BZ)

BRIEFING ORDER

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery on June 6,

2010. In response to the motion to compel, I ordered the

parties to meet and confer, which they did on June 30, 2010. 

Defendant’s counsel submitted an opposition to the motion on

July 9, 2010, stating that she thought that all discovery

issues had been resolved, but that if plaintiff needed more

documents, defendant would consider the requests so long as

defendants could do so “without undue burden.” Opp. at 1. On

July 16, 2010, plaintiff filed a reply to defendant’s

opposition to the motion to compel, claiming that he needs

further discovery. In light of plaintiff’s reply, it appears

all discovery issues were not settled during the parties’ meet

Case 4:09-cv-01800-PJH Document 44 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 2
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

and confer session.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant file an opposition

to plaintiff’s reply by July 30, 2010. Plaintiff shall file a

reply to that opposition by August 9, 2010. If the Court

feels a hearing is necessary it shall set one. 

To the extent plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery, his

requests should be made with Judge Hamilton. 

Dated: July 21, 2010 

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\GREGORY V. CITY & CTY S.F\DISC ORDER 2.wpd

Case 4:09-cv-01800-PJH Document 44 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 2