Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05723/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05723-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed April 22, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

ROGELIO SANCHEZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CARLOS JIMENEZ, and Does 1–10, 

 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C08-05723 JW (HRL) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS TO RE-OPEN 

DISCOVERY AND TO COMPEL 

[Re: Docket Nos. 20, 22] 

Rogelio Sanchez sued Carlos Jimenez for alleged violations of California and federal wage 

and hour laws. Sanchez now moves to re-open discovery and to compel Jimenez to provide further 

responses to interrogatories, requests for production, and deposition questions. Jimenez opposes the 

motion. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds the matter suitable for determination 

without oral argument, and the April 27, 2010 hearing is vacated. 

Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, this court denies plaintiff’s 

motions. Jimenez correctly notes that plaintiff’s motion to compel was not timely filed. See N.D. 

Cal. Civ. R. 26-2. The discovery deadline in this case was March 1, 2010, but Sanchez did not file 

the instant motions until March 23, 2010. The court rejects plaintiff’s contention that this delay was 

solely the fault of defendant; the record shows that plaintiff had been on notice for some time that he 

might need to file a motion to compel. 

Furthermore, Judge Ware has already denied the parties’ request to extend the discovery 

cutoff past March 1. (Docket No. 19.) Plaintiff has not shown good cause why this court should 

Case 5:08-cv-05723-LHK Document 26 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 3
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

For the Northern District of California 

ignore Judge Ware’s order and nonetheless allow plaintiff more time to seek additional discovery. 

In any case, Sanchez has failed to convince the court that the information he seeks is likely to lead to 

admissible evidence under the circumstances of this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 22, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:08-cv-05723-LHK Document 26 Filed 04/22/10 Page 2 of 3
3 

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

For the Northern District of California 

C08-05723 JW (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Adam Wang adamqwang@gmail.com, alpedersen@gmail.com, rosilenda@gmail.com 

Adam Lee Pedersen alpedersen@gmail.com 

Alan Louis Martini amartini@smtlaw.com, aobey@smtlaw.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:08-cv-05723-LHK Document 26 Filed 04/22/10 Page 3 of 3