Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04799/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04799-20/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL GAREDAKIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BRENTWOOD UNION SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04799-PJH 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’

ADMININSTRATIVE MOTIONS

Before the court are plaintiffs’ motion for relief from a nondispositive order of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 197); plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a surreply in opposition to 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 199); and an oral motion made by 

plaintiffs’ counsel at the April 13, 2016 hearing on defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment, seeking leave to supplement plaintiffs’ opposition to the summary judgment 

motion, to provide citations to evidence. 

First, with regard to the motion for relief from Judge Ryu’s order that psychological 

and employment records of plaintiff Lawrence Gullo be produced pursuant to a subpoena 

issued by defendants, the request is DENIED. The court is persuaded by defendants’

argument that they should be permitted to review the Gullo records with plaintiffs’ counsel 

and meet and confer regarding whether any of the records are relevant to the issues 

remaining in the case. However, defendants need not be provided access to the records 

until after the court has issued its ruling on defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Second, with respect to the motion for leave to file a surreply to respond to 

defendants’ arguments regarding plaintiffs’ Exhibits 40, 47, and 48 (the declarations of 

Case 4:14-cv-04799-PJH Document 206 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the non-party parents), the request is DENIED. The list of names and contact information 

of parents whose children attended Dina Holder’s class or who complained about Dina 

Holder was provided to plaintiffs on January 19, 2016. Plaintiffs filed the declarations of 

Rebecca Bingham, Cynthia Ruiz, and Kimberly Jones in support of their reply to 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment on March 23, 2016. They never disclosed the 

three declarants as witnesses, despite having had the information in their possession for 

more than two months. 

Plaintiffs argue that their failure to disclose the witnesses should be excused. 

Plaintiffs assert that because the contact information for the three witnesses was included 

as part of the contact information for the more than 70 children who were in Holder’s 

class or whose parents complained about Holder, they were not required to disclose that 

three parents out of this group would be submitting declarations in support of plaintiffs’

positions in this case. The court disagrees. Parties have an ongoing obligation to 

supplement their disclosures made under Rule 26(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). 

Third, with regard to the motion for leave to supplement the opposition with 

citations (page and line numbers) of evidence submitted in support of the opposition, the 

request is DENIED because of the prejudice to defendants, who previously filed a reply 

based on that opposition. Were the court to permit plaintiffs to supplement the opposition

with details that they should have included in the original opposition, the court would be 

obligated to allow defendants to supplement their reply to take into account the new 

citations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2016

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-04799-PJH Document 206 Filed 04/14/16 Page 2 of 2