Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03778/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03778-1/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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICKY DEAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANNY ALEGRE, ET. AL,

Defendant.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 04-03778 PVT

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION BE

TREATED AS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND CONTINUING HEARING

AND BRIEFING ON MOTION TO ALLOW

PLAINTIFF TO OBTAIN AFFIDAVITS

AND/OR CONDUCT LIMITED DISCOVERY

On June 17, 2005 this court issued an order granting a prior motion to dismiss by

Defendants, with partial leave to amend the complaint. On July 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed his

second amended complaint. Defendants Danny Alegre (“Alegre”) and Home Depot USA, Inc.

(“Home Depot”) have again moved to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment.1

Plaintiff has opposed the motion. Along with his opposition, Plaintiff filed a declaration

requesting a denial or continuance under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(f). Having

reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to treat the motion as

a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, and to continue the motion in order to allow

Case 5:04-cv-03778-PVT Document 47 Filed 08/03/05 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 As used herein, “affidavit” includes “declarations” made under penalty of perjury.

ORDER, page 2

Plaintiff an opportunity to obtain affidavits

2

 and/or conduct limited discovery. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is continued to October 4, 2005. Plaintiff may file supplemental opposition papers no

later than September 13, 2005. Defendants shall file their reply papers no later than September

27, 2005.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each side may take up to 4 hours of deposition. Each

side may divide their 4 hour limitation between up to three current or former employees of the

Santa Clara County District Attorneys office. The depositions shall be limited to the subject of

whether Deal received a favorable termination of the criminal charges against him, including: 

1) the reasons for the dismissal of the criminal charges against Deal; 2) whether at the time of the

dismissal the prosecution had sufficient evidence against Deal to proceed to trial. No written

discovery shall be allowed at this time absent agreement of the parties and pertinent non-parties,

or further order of this court for good cause shown.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall include in their further briefing on this

motion a discussion of what impact the state court’s denial of Deal’s motion for a finding of

factual innocence, and any appeal or lack of appeal therefrom, has on the question of “favorable

termination.”

Dated: 8/3/05

 /s/ Patricia V. Trumbull 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03778-PVT Document 47 Filed 08/03/05 Page 2 of 2