Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04757/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04757-16/pdf.json

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOVENDER FLEMING,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NADIA CLARK, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

VICTOR JONES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NADIA CLARK, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-1613 BZ

and Consolidated Case

No. C09-4757 BZ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs’ request to re-open discovery (Doc. No. 101)

is DENIED. In their motion for leave to amend the complaint,

plaintiffs stated that “it makes sense to add all relevant

claims, particularly those that do not require additional

discovery, especially those that are supported by the

evidence.” Doc. No. 75 p. 2. Plaintiffs characterized their

amendment as “academic” and “supported by the discovery thus

Case 3:09-cv-04757-BZ Document 39 Filed 05/12/10 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

far.” Id. at 3. Finally, plaintiffs directly stated that

they did not “foresee” any additional discovery being

necessary, which was a representation that the Court relied

upon when ruling on the motion to amend. Doc. No. 76 ¶ 17.

Dated: May 12, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\FLEMING v. CLARK\ORDER DENYING PLT'S REQUEST TO RE-OPEN

DISCOVERY.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-04757-BZ Document 39 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2