Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05072/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05072-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMILY LITTLER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 

(&QUOT;BART&QUOT;), et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05072-DMR 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 40

The parties filed a joint discovery letter on February 9, 2016 in which Defendants move to 

compel the production of documents. [Docket No. 40.] The fact discovery cut-off was January 

12, 2016. On February 17, 2016, the court issued an order noting that Defendants’ motion 

appeared untimely pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-3, which provides that “no motions to compel 

fact discovery may be filed more than 7 days after the fact discovery cut-off.” [Docket No. 41.] 

To the extent that Defendants asserted that the motion to compel was timely because it related to 

expert discovery, which did not close until February 9, 2016, the court ordered Defendants to 

submit a one-page letter by the close of business on February 18, 2016 explaining how the 

discovery at issue related to expert discovery and identifying all retained experts in this case. No 

such letter was filed. Accordingly, the court assumes that the discovery at issue was fact

discovery. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to compel is denied as untimely pursuant to Rule 37-3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:14-cv-05072-DMR Document 50 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 1