Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02394/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02394-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

KAYLEIGH SLUSHER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF NAPA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02394-SBA (JCS)

ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY 

MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 69.

Discovery matters in this action have been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for 

decision. See Order Referring Case (dkt. 28). Plaintiffs and certain defendants including and 

associated with the City of Napa (the “City Defendants”) filed a “joint” motion for the production 

of documents and for forensic examination of evidence. See Mot. (dkt. 69). Other defendants 

including and associated with the County of Napa (the “County Defendants”) oppose the motion, 

and seek to stay the case pending resolution of related criminal proceedings in state court. See 

Opp’n (dkt. 74). The parties stipulated to a briefing schedule for the County Defendants’ 

forthcoming motion to stay—to be heard by the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong, the 

presiding judge in this case—with replies to be filed no later than June 3, 2016, and Judge 

Armstrong endorsed that schedule. See Stip. & Order (dkt. 79). No hearing date has been set for 

the motion to stay. Id. Plaintiffs oppose a stay of the case, but the City Defendants intend to join 

the County Defendants’ motion. See Pls.’ Reply (dkt. 76); City Reply (dkt. 81). The City 

Defendants propose that the undersigned continue the hearing on the discovery motion until after 

resolution of the motion to stay, and deny the discovery motion without prejudice if the case is 

stayed. See City Reply.

Whether the case should be stayed is a question for Judge Armstrong to address, and the 

undersigned expresses no opinion on that matter. Nor does the undersigned express an opinion at 

Case 4:15-cv-02394-SBA Document 83 Filed 04/18/16 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

this time on the merits of the pending discovery motion. Pending Judge Armstrong’s decision on 

the forthcoming motion to stay, however, the discovery motion is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE and the hearing set for April 29, 2016 is VACATED. 

If the motion to stay is denied in full or in part, and Plaintiffs and/or the City Defendants 

wish to renew their discovery motion, the parties are instructed to follow the procedures for 

resolution of discovery disputes set forth in the order dated September 16, 2015, appearing as 

docket entry 34. Further filings directed to the undersigned magistrate judge shall be captioned as 

“joint” if and only if all parties to the case join in filing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-02394-SBA Document 83 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 2