Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02042/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02042-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

L.H., A.Z., D.K., and D.R., 

on behalf of themselves and all

other similarly situated juvenile

parolees in California,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-2042 LKK GGH

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendants have requested an extension of time to file and serve discovery

responses. Plaintiffs have filed an opposition. The seven sets of discovery requests were initially

due by February 21, 2007. Defendants’ request was filed on March 29, 2007, the day before their

responses were due. The March 30, 2007 response date was provided by plaintiffs after

previously granting defendants a thirty day extension and then a seven day extension of time. 

Defendants have therefore had 67 days in which to respond to five sets of interrogatories, one set

of requests for admissions, and one set of requests for production of documents. 

Defendants argue that the discovery requests are broad in scope and large in

number. This may well be the case. 

Case 2:06-cv-02042-LKK-DAD Document 81 Filed 04/02/07 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

2

However, counsel should have sought a discovery conference in this type of case

(many defendants and general state policies at issue with many affected persons) with the court

so that all discovery problems could be anticipated and aired rather than file ex parte for an

extension of time on the day before voluminous discovery is due. If there are going to be

logistical problems in responding to discovery, these problems need to be resolved one time

rather than piecemeal. Otherwise, filing for extensions of time at the eleventh hour have all the

earmarks of counsel attempting to grant himself a unilateral extension of time, i.e., there is the

thought that the court will automatically grant these requests, or the thought that what is the court

going to be able to do with so little notice in any event.

The ex parte request for extension of time is denied. Defendants shall have until

April 9, 2007 in which to answer the discovery requests. With the exception of attorney-client

privilege, bona fide privacy privilege assertions, and work product immunity, all objections are

waived. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ March 29, 2007 request for an extension of time is denied; and

2. Defendants shall produce the responses as ordered herein.

DATED: 4/2/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

L.H.2042.36.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-02042-LKK-DAD Document 81 Filed 04/02/07 Page 2 of 2