Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03396/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03396-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GARY HOWARD KIDGELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, COUNTY OF

SANTA CLARA SHERIFF’S DEPT.;

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICERS

WHEELER #2595, QUIRO #2705,

CUNNINGHAM #2699, TAIARIOL #2701,

ROGGY #2365, ROHDES #1712, HELIKSON

#2016, ASBAN #1939, DEPUTY MORIN

#0321; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

STAFF LOUELLA MANZANO AND DOES 1

through 50,

Defendants. /

No. C08-03396 JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

[Re: Docket No. 62]

Defendant County of Santa Clara (“County”) moves for an order compelling pro se

plaintiff Gary Kidgell to produce documents. This court has not received any opposition to that

motion. And, on February 22, 2010, this court issued an interim order (Docket No. 78) (a)

directing the County to file a status report on March 1, 2010 as to the discovery sought; and (b)

stating that the matter would then be deemed submitted on the papers.

As noted in this court’s interim order, it appears that there is no dispute as to whether

and what documents should be produced. The only question is when plaintiff should produce

(or should have already produced) them. The County reports that plaintiff still has not produced

*E-FILED 03-02-2010*

Case 5:08-cv-03396-EJD Document 80 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 3
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

the promised documents that he reportedly agreed to provide by January 27, 2010 and February

28, 2010. Accordingly, the County’s motion is granted as follows: within ten days from the

date of this order, plaintiff shall produce the outstanding documents responsive to the County’s

requests — i.e., his email communications with his clients and his 2006, 2007 and 2008 tax

returns.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

March 2, 2010

Case 5:08-cv-03396-EJD Document 80 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5:08-cv-03396-JW Notice electronically mailed to:

David Michael Rollo david.rollo@cco.sccgov.org, anna.espiritu@cco.sccgov.org

Neysa A. Fligor neysa.fligor@cco.sccgov.org

Rima Harbans Singh rima.singh@cco.sccgov.org, marylou.gonzales@cco.sccgov.org

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

5:08-cv-03396-JW Notice mailed to: 

Gary Howard Kidgell

228 Spruce Street

Wichita, KS 67214

Pro Se Plaintiff

Case 5:08-cv-03396-EJD Document 80 Filed 03/02/10 Page 3 of 3