Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00971/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00971-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN DIMMICK,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 05-0971 PJH

v. ORDER

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Notwithstanding the denial of plaintiff’s Rule 56f request for a continuance, plaintiff

was given leave to file his objections related to the government’s May 1, 2006, disclosures. 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s submission of May 19, 2006, entitled “Motion to Enforce

Discovery; Motion to Reopen Discovery to Permit Motion to Enforce Responses to Prior

Discovery to Be Compelled.” As is usual, rather than provide a plain statement of his

objections to the government’s disclosures, plaintiff has thrown in a veritable cornucopia of

complaints and it is impossible to determine exactly how the government has erred or what

plaintiff wants. Plaintiff appears to be seeking a reopening of discovery in order to seek

additional discovery, in order to lodge complaints about the government’s prior disclosures

and/or discovery responses, and in order to file a motion to compel. He also appears to be

seeking an order requiring that the government’s disclosures be treated as discovery

responses and that they be verified. He also appears to be seeking some sort of sanction

against the government.

The government was not afforded in the May 12, 2006 order, an opportunity to

respond as the court wanted to see something in writing from plaintiff, with the hope of

achieving some level of understanding of the problem before attempting to address it. As

Case 4:05-cv-00971-PJH Document 44 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

the court is in no better position than it was at the time of the hearing, the court elects to

proceed as follows.

Local Rule 26-2 requires that motions to compel be filed within 7 days after any

discovery cutoff date set by the court. Accordingly, as the discovery cutoff date was April

14, 2006, any motion to compel should have long since been filed. However, because this

matter will be tried to the court, and because of this court’s lengthy experience with

plaintiff’s various cases, and in view of the limited issue remaining for trial and this court’s

desire to have as complete a record before it as possible at trial, the court will permit a

discovery motion to be filed by plaintiff.

Before such motion is filed, however, the parties shall meet and confer in person

to try to resolve this dispute. Should the meet and confer be unsuccessful, plaintiff shall file

his motion no later than May 31, 2006 and the government’s response shall be filed no

later than June 9, 2006. No reply will be permitted; the matter will be decided on the

papers. Plaintiff’s motion shall comply with Local Rule 37-2 which set’s forth the form of

motions to compel and shall be specific as to what, if any, rules have been violated by the

government and as to what plaintiff is seeking. A lack of clarity will result in the denial of

the motion. Given the court’s unavailability from June 19 - July 24, 2006, no continuances

of these dates will be permitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2006

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00971-PJH Document 44 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 2