Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03685/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03685-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MTN. TO REOPEN FACT 

DISCOVERY; CASE NO. C07-3685 SBA

 

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 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

DANNY CHOU, State Bar # 180240

Chief of Complex and Special Litigation 

JAMES M. EMERY, State Bar #153630

ELAINE M. O'NEIL, State Bar #142234 

Deputy City Attorneys 

1390 Market Street, Seventh Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-3881 

Facsimile: (415) 554-3985 

E-Mail: elaine.o'neil@sfgov.org 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IVANA KIROLA and ELIZABETH 

ELFTMAN, on behalf of themselves and all 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO ("the CITY"); GAVIN 

NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Mayor; 

AARON PESKIN, in his official capacity as 

President of the Board of Supervisors; JAKE 

MCGOLDRICK, MICHELA ALIOTOPIER, ED JEW, CHRIS DALY, SEAN 

ELSBERND, BEVAN DUFTY, TOM 

AMMIANO, SOPHIE MAXWELL, ROSS 

MIRKARIMI, AND GERARDO 

SANDOVAL, in their official capacities as 

members of the Board of Supervisors, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C07-3685 SBA 

CLASS ACTION 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO REOPEN 

FACT DISCOVERY 

Trial Date: July 12, 2010 

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 272 Filed 05/10/10 Page 1 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MTN. TO REOPEN FACT 

DISCOVERY; CASE NO. C07-3685 SBA

1 c:\documents and settings\workstation\local 

settings\temp\notes06e812\00626013.doc 

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 

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to reopen the fact discovery period for an additional 30 days. 

Fact discovery closed on March 31, 2010, and plaintiffs filed their administrative motion on April 26, 

2010. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and hereby DENIES plaintiffs' motion 

to reopen fact discovery. 

Discovery has already been extended three times in this case. Plaintiffs have failed to 

demonstrate good cause for this fourth request for additional fact discovery. With reasonable 

diligence, plaintiffs could have completed all necessary discovery within the 32-month fact discovery 

period in this case, including the five-week extension plaintiffs sought and the Court granted in 

February of this year, over the City's objection. Further, reopening discovery will cause prejudice to 

the City, inasmuch as the parties' pretrial submissions are due June 1, 2010 and any reopening of 

discovery would require further delays and expense. For these reasons, plaintiffs' motion to reopen 

discovery is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 5/10/10 _______________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 HON. SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG 

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 272 Filed 05/10/10 Page 2 of 2