Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00766/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00766-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY GUY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06CV0766-JM(LSP)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION (DOC. 84)

Plaintiff requests an expedited briefing schedule and hearing date for an anticipated motion

relating to discovery. An application for an order shortening time must be accompanied by a declaration

showing good cause. The declaration by Mr. Shewry states the order is necessary to have the matter

decided in a timely matter in advance of the February 11, 2008 trial date. Mr. Shewry further represents

Defendants do not object to the matter being heard on shortened time and the Court has not received any

opposition. Accordingly, the Court has no objection to an expedited briefing schedule.

The anticipated motion is described as a “Motion to Re-Open Discovery” for the “limited

purpose of pursuing additional relevant documents.” At this juncture, it is not clear what relief Plaintiff

hopes to obtain by way of the motion. Based on oral representations made by Mr. Shewry during

Discovery Conferences held on September 26 and November 9, 2007, it had been the Court’s belief that

Plaintiff intended to move to compel compliance with previous discovery requests, however, the current

description seems as though the anticipated motion may be an effort to propound new discovery

Case 3:06-cv-00766-JM-JMA Document 85 Filed 11/26/07 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

requests. The Court makes no determination as to the viability of either motion at this time, but notes

that either approach first requires leave from the motion filing deadline, which expired on April 13,

2007. In addition, the second scenario also requires leave from the March 16, 2007, deadline for

completion of discovery. Plaintiff’s ex parte application does not seek relief from either the discovery

or motion deadlines. The Court comments on this point in order to thwart the possibility this order

might be misconstrued as granting Plaintiff relief from the case management deadlines and to emphasis

the point that Plaintiff’s anticipated “Motion to Re-Open Discovery” will not be considered unless

Plaintiff adequately demonstrates – by way of separate motion – good cause why relief should be

afforded from all applicable case management deadlines.

 In as much as the motion regarding the case management dates is a necessary precursor to the

discovery motion described in Plaintiff’s pending ex parte application, and in consideration of the

timing issues raised by Plaintiff, the Court will not require a separate application for shortened time to

file a motion for relief from the case management dates and, instead, construes the pending application

as seeking shortened time for both motions. 

Therefore, Plaintiff is permitted to file a motion seeking relief from the case management

deadlines (motion cut-off and discovery cut-off, if appropriate), which shall clearly and succinctly set

forth Plaintiff’s legal and factual basis for seeking relief from these dates. This motion shall be filed

concurrently with the discovery motion, which shall address with specificity the nature of the discovery

issues and clearly state the nature of the relief sought by way of that motion, as well as Plaintiff’s

supporting legal and factual basis. Briefing for both motions shall take place on the same expedited

schedule as set forth below:

Plaintiff’s Motion shall be filed and served by December 5, 2007

Opposition December 12, 2007

Reply December 14, 2007 

 Oral argument will not be heard unless scheduled by the Court.

DATED: November 26, 2007

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00766-JM-JMA Document 85 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 2