Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03744/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03744-8/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

Although plaintiff’s opposition was not timely filed, the Court has exercised its

discretion to consider said filing.

2

Defendants noticed the motion for a November 16, 2007 hearing. During the

November 9, 2007 Status Conference, the Court advanced the hearing to November 9,

2007, and conducted the hearing at that time. Accordingly, the November 16, 2007 hearing

is VACATED.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL WILLINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C 06-3744 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO COMPEL

DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF;

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE

DEFENDANTS WITH DATE OR DATES

ON WHICH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IS

AVAILABLE FOR DEPOSITION

Before the Court is defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute or, in the

Alternative, Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff,” filed October 5, 2007. Plaintiff has

filed opposition.1

 Defendants have filed a reply. The matter came before the Court on

November 9, 2007.2

 Nathaniel Willingham appeared pro se. Kevin E. Gilbert of Meyers,

Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson appeared on behalf of defendants.

Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and

the arguments of the parties, the Court, for the reasons stated on the record, hereby

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 77 Filed 11/09/07 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

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion, as follows:

1. To the extent defendants seek dismissal of the action and imposition of monetary

sanctions, the motion is DENIED.

2. To the extent defendants seek to compel plaintiff to appear at a deposition in

Oakland, California, the motion is GRANTED, and plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to appear

at a deposition to be conducted on November 16, 2007, at 8:30 a.m., at the offices of

Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, 555 12th Street, Suite 1500, Oakland, California.

Further, plaintiff is DIRECTED to provide to defendants, on or before November 16,

2007, one or more dates on which plaintiff’s expert is available for a deposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 77 Filed 11/09/07 Page 2 of 2