Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGIE CHERRY and ESTORIA CHERRY,

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO

(“City College”), LAWRENCE WONG, in his

official capacity as President of the Board of

Trustees, MILTON MARKS, III, in his official

capacity as Vice-President of the Board of

Trustees, DR. NATALIE BERG, JOHNNIE

CARTER, JR., DR. ANITA GRIER, JULIO J.

RAMOS, RODEL E. RODIS, in their official

capacities as members of the Board of

Trustees, and DR. PHILIP R. RAY, JR., in his

official capacity as Chancellor,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-04981 WHA

ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN 

PART PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL

On November 22, 2005, plaintiffs brought five motions to compel. Defendants filed

oppositions to these motions on December 2, 2005. The Court rules on these motions as

follows:

1. With respect to the June 2 order, defendants’ construction of the order is correct

and has been complied with.

2. With respect to the maps, it would be unreasonable to require the only copies in 

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 445 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

existence to removed from the walls and copied. Plaintiffs should have used a camera to copy

them in place during the inspections. It is too late now. Also, Requests 18 and 19 were so

overbroad and burdensome that this Court would not enforce them.

3. With respect to Mr. Hopper, plaintiffs may depose him for three hours, exclusive 

of breaks, provided he can be subpoenaed and deposed before December 16, 2005. At the

conclusion of the three hours, defendant may have 30 minutes for follow-up examination.

4. The depositions of Mr. Louser, Mr. Goldstein and the Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses 

are now deemed concluded. Plaintiffs had a fair shot. No counsel is entitled to depose

witnesses to the nth degree. A reasonable opportunity has been afforded already. No further

deposition time will be allowed.

5. With respect to Gary Jackson, leave to take his deposition is denied too little too 

late.

* * *

The majority of plaintiffs’ discovery grievances should have been raised much earlier. 

Although it is true that these motions were brought after the discovery cutoff, they were (barely)

brought within the ten-day deadline following the cutoff. That said, the time has come for

counsel to be preparing for trial in earnest and for discovery to come to an end. It would be too

burdensome to allow the requested discovery run in parallel to trial preparation, except to the

limited extent above.

Finally, if it is true that Ms. Cherry exited her deposition as directed by defense counsel,

then there may be ramifications at trial when she testifies. But the time for bringing discovery

motions has passed and the Court will not make any further discovery order pertaining thereto.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 445 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2