Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03461/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03461-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

The Court specially set this date to accommodate Plaintiffs’ counsel’s schedule and

because the Court currently has a trial scheduled that day. If the Court’s trial is taken off

calendar, the motion hearing shall occur at 10:00 AM on October 20, and the parties shall

keep that time available. The Court will let the parties know of any change in time at least

one week prior to the hearing.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID YEZEK and SHAWN

FRAZER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHP OFFICER M. MITCHELL, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C05-3461 TEH 

SCHEDULING ORDER

FOLLOWING AUGUST 28, 2006

CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

As ordered at the August 28, 2006 case management conference, the parties shall

complete the only remaining fact-witness deposition on or before September 8, 2006. In

addition, the motion to compel contemplated by Plaintiffs shall, if it is filed at all, be filed on

or before September 15, 2006, and noticed for hearing on October 20, 2006, at 3:00 PM.1

The briefing schedule shall be in accordance with the Civil Local Rules based on the

October 20 hearing date. The Court shall also conduct a further case management

conference following the motion hearing, and the parties shall meet and confer and file a

joint case management statement on or before October 13, 2006.

If, however, Plaintiffs choose not to file a motion to compel, then there would be no

reason to wait until October 20 for the case management conference, at which time the Court

contemplates setting a trial date and briefing schedule for dispositive motions. Instead, if

Plaintiffs do not file a motion to compel, then the parties shall meet and confer and file a

joint case management statement on or before September 25, 2006, and shall appear for a

case management conference on October 2, 2006, at 1:30 PM.

Case 3:05-cv-03461-TEH Document 29 Filed 08/29/06 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

Finally, upon further consideration, the Court vacates its order that Defendants may

file their motion for summary judgment on the same schedule as Plaintiffs’ motion to

compel. Plaintiffs represented that their motion would be based, at least in part, on the

proposition that Plaintiffs need additional discovery to rebut Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment, and it would therefore be inefficient to proceed with both motions

simultaneously.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/29/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-03461-TEH Document 29 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 2