Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00869/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00869-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES H. WASHBURN JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALEX FAGAN JR., WALTER CONTRERAS,

and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et. al.,

Defendants. /

KEVIN ROY JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALEX FAGAN, JR., JASON KRISTAL, and

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-03-00869 MJJ (EDL)

No. C-03-1194 MJJ (EDL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT

FAGAN’S ANSWERS AT DEPOSITION

AND VACATING MARCH 14, 2006

HEARING 

On November 1, 2005, Judge Jenkins gave Plaintiffs leave to conduct Defendant Alex Fagan

Jr.’s deposition no later than November 23, 2005. Plaintiffs took Mr. Fagan’s deposition on

November 17, 2005. During the deposition, defense counsel instructed Mr. Fagan not to answer

certain questions relating to the detention and arrest of James Smith in September 2002 because

counsel believed those questions were beyond the scope of the deposition. On January 26, 2006,

Plaintiffs’ filed a motion to compel, seeking responses to the unanswered deposition questions. 

Defendant opposed this motion. Plaintiffs chose not to file a reply even though the clerk’s notice

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 240 Filed 03/10/06 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

setting the hearing on their motion gave them the opportunity to do so. Because this matter is

appropriate for decision without oral argument, the hearing scheduled for March 14, 2006 is vacated. 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel suffers from procedural defects that, in combination, justify

denial of the motion. First, there is no indication that the parties engaged in meaningful meet and

confer discussions before Plaintiffs filed this motion. Plaintiffs argue that the colloquy between

counsel on the record at the deposition should be construed as an “expedited attempt to meet and

confer,” and that the colloquy shows that no further meet and confer would be fruitful. Gohel Decl.

¶¶ 2-3. Far from showing that no further meet and confer would be fruitful, the discussion on the

record consisted of each party simply stating its position. There was no attempt to compromise,

which is the focus of the meet and confer process. See Civil L.R. 1-5(n) (requiring direct dialogue

and discussion during meet and confer sessions). Moreover, even if the discussion on the record

constituted adequate meet and confer, there is no indication that the parties met and conferred about

every question to which Plaintiffs now seek an answer. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have provided no

explanation as to why they did not engage in the meet and confer process during the two months

between the deposition and the filing of this motion. 

Second, Plaintiffs’ brief in support of the motion is inadequate. The filing does not contain

any points and authorities (except a citation to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2) as authority

for bringing this motion). Civil L.R. 7-2(b)(4) (requiring points and authorities). The motion itself

is less than one page long. 

Third, Plaintiffs did not file this motion in a timely manner. The deposition took place on

November 17, 2005, and the Certificate of Reporter on the deposition transcript is dated November

28, 2005. Yet Plaintiffs did not file this motion until January 26, 2006. Plaintiffs argue that a

motion was not filed sooner “based upon the Court’s resolution of the pending summary judgment

motion.” The fact that a summary judgment motion was under submission, however, cuts the other

way. Although the discovery rule requiring motions to compel to be filed within seven days of the

discovery cutoff date (Civil L.R. 26-2) does not directly apply to this discovery, which was courtordered and occurred well after the cutoff date, it illustrates the policy against undue delay in filing

discovery motions. Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in filing this motion by waiting more than two

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 240 Filed 03/10/06 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

months after the discovery event. See, e.g., 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and

Procedure, § 2285 (2d ed. 1994) (Supp. 2005) (“If the moving party has unduly delayed, the court

may conclude that the motion [to compel] is untimely.”). 

Accordingly, on these procedural grounds, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 240 Filed 03/10/06 Page 3 of 3