Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02194/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02194-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

C-05-2194 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Mahmoud Mohamed, 

Plaintiff,

v.

John E. Potter, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 05-2194 CRB (JL)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Introduction

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Charles R.

Breyer) as provided by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. Plaintiff filed a motion to

compel production of documents on June 8, 2007, noticing a hearing on July 5. This is less

than the minimum of 35 days between filing and hearing required by Civil Local Rule 7-2(a).

Plaintiff filed no application for an Order Shortening Time. July 5 is also a Thursday; this

Court’s Law and Motion Calendar is heard on Wednesday. The parties are preparing for

hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff received an extension of

time from Judge Breyer in order to review the voluminous discovery documents already

produced by Defendant before filing his opposition by July 20. 

Judge Breyer ordered:

The Court finds it appropriate to give Plaintiff, who is not a native English speaker

and who is proceeding pro se in this matter, additional time to comb through the

Case 3:05-cv-02194-CRB Document 98 Filed 06/11/07 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

C-05-2194 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 3

thousands of pages of discovery produced by Defendant. The Court recognizes that

many of these thousands of pages should already be familiar to Plaintiff, who was

responsible for generating many of these materials through the nine complaints he

filed before the EEOC, and who is familiar with the subject matter of these materials

through his participation in those proceedings.

(Order filed 5-1-07, dkt# 90)(granting Plaintiff’s request for additional time to file his

opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment).

The motion for summary judgment will be heard on August 17.

Relief Sought

Plaintiff describes efforts to meet and confer regarding discovery in March, April and

May 2007. In much of his motion Plaintiff repeats what he has requested in previous

motions to compel before this Court. In fact he includes exhibits and contentions which

exactly duplicate those in previous motions. He appears to request the following:

1. Manager Herb Gauthier and Manager Kirby Faciane’s “sexual misconduct

record” and their EEOC files;

2. Carol Miller and “other individuals’” EEOC files;

3. Plaintiff’s EEOC files, injury compensation files, personnel files, medical and

OPF files;

Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Requests

In January 2007, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for

Production of Documents. (Ex. 7 to Plaintiff’s motion).

That all of Plaintiff’s medical documents had been produced, except for those listed

on the privilege log provided to Plaintiff in June 2006;

That all of Plaintiff’s files had been produced, except for any documents listed on the

above privilege log;

That some of the documents already produced contain documents from the files of

potential witnesses in this case, except for those withheld on the basis of privilege, which

are listed on the privilege log described above;

That all documents concerning any Postal investigation of Plaintiff have already

been produced;

Case 3:05-cv-02194-CRB Document 98 Filed 06/11/07 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

C-05-2194 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 3

That there are no files or documents with information about any sexual misconduct;

That Defendant has already produced all documents pertaining to Herb Gauthier

and to Carol Miller and any role she may have played in Plaintiff’s employment.

Conclusion

This Court finds that Plaintiff’s document requests are overbroad, that Defendant

has already produced thousands of pages of documents in response to Plaintiff’s requests

and that Plaintiff has used this voluminous production as justification to seek an extension

of time to file his opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

This Court further finds that it would be more productive for Plaintiff to spend his

time reviewing the documents he has already received and drafting his opposition to

Defendant’s summary judgment motion rather than filing discovery motions for documents

which either do not exist or which are already in his possession. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant need not file an opposition. The

hearing date of July 5 is vacated.

. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 11, 2007

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\05-2194\ord-deny-discovery.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-02194-CRB Document 98 Filed 06/11/07 Page 3 of 3