Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00532/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00532-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CALIFORNIA PARENTS FOR THE

EQUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL

MATERIALS, 

Plaintiff,

NO. CIV. S-06-532 FCD KJM

v.

THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

----oo0oo----

On January 18, 2008, the court granted defendants’ unopposed

ex parte application for an order shortening time to hear their

motion to stay discovery. By the motion, defendants seek a stay

of all discovery pending a hearing on a motion for summary

judgment, they intend to file on January 31, 2008, asserting that

this action is precluded in its entirety by the doctrine of res

Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM Document 61 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 3
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 See Docket #52 (setting the close of fact discovery for

February 15, 2008 and the close of expert discovery for April 17,

2008).

2

judicata/collateral estoppel, as a result of a prior state court

judgment on the same cause of action and issues in a lawsuit

brought by parties in privity with plaintiff. While plaintiff

did not oppose the ex parte application to shorten time, it

indicated that it did intend to oppose the underlying motion to

stay discovery. As the parties were set to commence the subject

depositions on January 24, 2008, the court directed plaintiff to

file its opposition to the motion to stay discovery on or before

January 22, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. 

Plaintiff, however, filed a statement of non-opposition

(Docket #60), and no longer opposes the stay of discovery

provided defendants’ motion for summary judgment is directed, as

they represent, solely at legal issues. In light of plaintiff’s

non-opposition, and finding good cause to support a stay pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), considering that defendants’ motion for

summary judgment is expected to raise only legal issues which

could be dispositive of the case and obviate the need for further

discovery, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion to stay discovery. 

All discovery, both fact and expert, is stayed, and the dates

presently set for the close of discovery,1

 both fact and expert,

are hereby vacated.

Defendants shall notice their motion for summary judgment on

res judicata/collateral estoppel grounds for March 7, 2008 at

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2. All briefing shall be filed and

served in conformance with that hearing date and E.D. Cal. 

L.R. 78-230. If necessary, the court will re-open discovery and

Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM Document 61 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 3
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 dispositive motion deadline is presently set for

July 11, 2008; the final pretrial conference is set for September

12, 2008; and trial is set to commence November 4, 2008.

3

set new dates for the close of discovery, both fact and expert,

in conjunction with ruling on defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. The dispositive motion deadline and the final pretrial

conference and trial dates shall remain as presently set (see

Docket #52).2 However, said dates may need to be continued at a

later time in light of any new dates set for the close of

discovery. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2008

Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM Document 61 Filed 01/23/08 Page 3 of 3