Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01962/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01962-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims 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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES ex rel. DONNA M.

McLEAN and THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ex rel DONNA M. McLEAN,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C05-01962 HRL

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR AN ORDER

SHORTENING TIME

[Re: Docket No. 165]

Defendants move for an order shortening time on their motion to compel expert

disclosure (Docket # 168). They express concern that, under a normal 35-day calendar, their

motion will not be heard until after the June 16, 2008 expert discovery cutoff. No response has

been received from relator, and the time for filing one has passed.

Upon consideration of the papers filed, the motion for an order shortening time is

denied. The court’s Civil Local Rules permit motions to compel discovery to be filed up to

seven court days after the pertinent cutoff date. See Civ. L.R. 26-2. Where, as here, a timely

motion to compel has been filed, the existence of a discovery cutoff does not divest the court of

the power to order the discovery in dispute to go forward, assuming the court concludes it is

proper.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel will be set for hearing on June 24, 2008,

*E-FILED 5/23/2008*

Case 5:05-cv-01962-HRL Document 172 Filed 05/23/08 Page 1 of 3
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

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2. Briefing shall proceed in accordance with a normal 35-day

calendar under the court’s Civil Local Rules. Defendants’ request to extend (or re-open) expert

discovery as may be appropriate will be addressed when the court deals with the merits of their

motion to compel.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

May 23, 2008

Case 5:05-cv-01962-HRL Document 172 Filed 05/23/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5:05-cv-1962 Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Virginia Stewart Alspaugh Virginia_Alspaugh@cmwlaw.net, Linda_Knobbe@cmwlaw.net,

TheAlspaughs@cox.net 

Orley Brandt Caudill , Jr brandt_caudill@cmwlaw.net, christopher_zopatti@cmwlaw.net 

William C. Dresser loofwcd@aol.com 

Melissa R. Kiniyalocts melissa.kiniyalocts@cco.co.scl.ca.us 

Donna M McLean loofwcd@aol.com 

Sara McLean sara.mclean@usdoj.gov 

Richard Augustus Swenson rsloofwcd@aol.com 

Joan Eve Trimble joan_trimble@cmwlaw.net, patricia_inabnet@cmwlaw.net 

Sara Winslow sara.winslow@usdoj.gov, kathy.terry@usdoj.gov

Counsel are responsible for distributing a copy of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Notice mailed to:

Julia Ann Clayton 

California Attorney General’s Office 

455 Golden Gate Avenue, # 11000 

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:05-cv-01962-HRL Document 172 Filed 05/23/08 Page 3 of 3