Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00767/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00767-7/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

MIKE RAHBARIAN; FAKHRI ATTAR; 

PAIMAN RAHBARIAN; and VERA 

DAVYDENKO, on behalf of herself and as 

guardian ad litem for N.R., a minor, and 

M.R., a minor,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DANIEL CAWLEY and BRUCE 

SMALLWOOD,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-00767-TLN-KJN

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ request that the Court order Defendants to 

produce, well after the discovery cutoff date, certain documents that Plaintiffs describe as the

California Attorney General’s “criminal file”; however, Plaintiffs style this request as a “Request 

for Clarification.” (ECF No. 73.) The Court’s prior order (ECF No. 72) granted Plaintiffs the 

opportunity to inspect the five boxes that contained certain bank records pertaining to a criminal 

investigation and did not mention the “criminal file” to which Plaintiffs refer in their pending 

motion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ tardy request for an order compelling production of the 

“criminal file” documents is DENIED. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A scheduling order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, 

Case 2:10-cv-00767-TLN-KJN Document 74 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 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

2

which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.’ . . . Disregard of the order would 

undermine the court’s ability to control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of the 

litigation, and reward the indolent and the cavalier.”). (See also Scheduling Order, ECF No. 14 

(prescribing that all “discovery shall be completed by April 27, 2012.”).)

Moreover, Plaintiffs are advised to follow the schedule prescribed in this Court’s prior 

order (ECF No. 72).

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: January 7, 2014

Case 2:10-cv-00767-TLN-KJN Document 74 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 2