Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-72/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO BRIEF

THE ONE AND ONLY ISSUE

REMAINING PURSUANT TO

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

(Docs. 679, 680, 715, 718)

The court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ ex parte request for

enlargement of time in which to file post-hearing brief and/or

motion to alter or amend order filed at docket 715, re: discovery

hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to compel, filed at 679, and held

on February 29, 2008, pursuant to Local Rule 6-144, Local Rule

78-230, and F.R.C.P. 59(e). (Doc. 718) Plaintiffs argue they

need more than the CD of the February 29, 2008 hearing held

regarding Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and Defendants’ ex parte

request to continue the discovery hearing from February 29, 2008

to March 28, 2008. They feel they need a written transcript. 

The relief they now seek is based on the time it will take to

obtain the official transcript through the court transcription

services out of Sacramento.

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 719 Filed 03/18/08 Page 1 of 3
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

There is a bit of a disconnect between the body of the

petition (entitled “Introduction” ) and Mr. Hamilton’s

declaration (page -4-): On page -3- at lines 6-11, #5.,

Plaintiffs state that it will take until approximately March 21,

2008 to get that transcript from Sacramento, then 7 more days

“thereafter within which to prepare and file any motion.....” 

That would take Plaintiffs to right at March 28, 2008 to file

“any motion”, thus landing squarely within the briefing schedule

the Court gave counsel at hearing. Plaintiffs’ brief was to be

filed on or before March 31, 2008. The declaration, page -4- at

lines 12-18, requests an enlargement of time to March 31, 2008 to

actually receive the transcript. There is, however, no date set

forth by which Plaintiffs believe they can have their opening

brief filed thereafter.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, originally filed September 21,

2007, shall be heard on the date presently set, May 30, 2008 at

9:30 a.m., unless the Court and only the Court needs to move it

for judicial reasons. The briefing schedule is modified as

follows: Plaintiffs’ brief in support of said motion, including

points and authorities, declarations and exhibits, shall be filed

on or before April 18, 2008; Defendants’ opposition shall be

filed on or before May 9, 2008; Plaintiffs’ reply shall be filed

on or before May 19, 2008. Plaintiffs may appear telephonically

upon pre-hearing notice to Courtroom Deputy Harriet Herman at

(559) 499-5692.

The Court hereby admonishes Plaintiffs that the record of

the hearing on February 29, 2008 could not be any more clear and

complete and definite: The only argument from Plaintiffs’

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 719 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

motion, filed September 27, 2007, that remains at issue has to do

with the deposition of Ms. Conry. This Court has made it

absolutely, positively, without any hesitation clear that there

is to be no further discovery of any kind or character whatsoever

other than the possibility of the deposition of Mr. Conry. The

Court’s reasoning is carefully and completely set forth on the

record of the February 29, 2008 hearing. And, with regard to the

issue of Mr. Conry’s deposition, Plaintiffs are reminded that

this court has no jurisdiction over Ms. Conry, that if she agrees

to be deposed, they should file a declaration from Ms. Conry

setting forth her willingness to be deposed. Further, where Ms.

Conry might be deposed is also an issue that should be briefed. 

Lastly and probably most importantly, the relevance of Ms.

Conry’s testimony to the remaining cause(s) of action in this

lawsuit needs to be briefed. 

Should the parties brief anything other than the necessity,

or not, of the deposition of Ms. Conry, the Court will strike any

portion of the briefing that has to do with that extraneous

surplusage. In addition, the Court seriously will consider

imposing monetary sanctions on the party or parties who brief

anything other than that having to do with Ms. Conry’s

deposition.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 719 Filed 03/18/08 Page 3 of 3