Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02295/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02295-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information 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

DENNIS JOSEPH RAIMONDO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02295-JSC 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 63

Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order seeking to quash deposition subpoenas issued 

to two former FBI employees came before the Court for hearing on September 10, 2015. (Dkt. 

No. 63.) For the reasons stated on the record, the motion is GRANTED without prejudice to 

Plaintiffs’ renewal of their request for additional targeted discovery following receipt of 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

In light of this ruling, the Court modifies the briefing schedule on the forthcoming motions 

for summary judgment as follows:

November 12, 2015: Defendant files motion for summary judgment.

November 20, 2015: Plaintiffs notify Defendant of whether they desire to obtain 

additional targeted discovery. Parties should meet and 

confer thereafter.

December 1, 2015: Plaintiffs forward Defendant their portion of a joint 

discovery letter brief regarding the additional discovery 

sought.

Case 3:13-cv-02295-JSC Document 68 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

December 10, 2015: Parties file their joint discovery letter brief.

December 17, 2015: Hearing on Plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery at 

9:00 a.m.

If following the filing of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment the parties agree on 

additional discovery, but believe a modification of the schedule is needed, they may stipulate to an 

amended schedule.

If upon review of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs do not believe that 

further discovery is necessary, the previously established briefing schedule shall apply:

December 17, 2015: Plaintiffs file opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment and cross motion for summary judgment.

January 28, 2016: Defendant files reply in support of motion for summary 

judgment and opposition to Plaintiffs’ cross motion for 

summary judgment.

February 11, 2016: Plaintiffs file reply in support of Plaintiffs’ cross motion for

summary judgment.

March 3, 2016: Hearing on cross motions for summary judgment.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 63

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02295-JSC Document 68 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 2