Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04098/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04098-17/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BURGESS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ALAMEDA

COUNTY ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C01-04098 MJJ

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Before the Court is Defendants’ request for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide

additional discovery regarding her alleged disabilities. This issue was originally raised in

Defendant’s June 20, 2006 motion to compel (Docket No. 192), which was taken off-calendar by

stipulation, without prejudice to Defendants’ ability to re-notice the motion if needed (Docket No.

220). Defendants have now reasserted a need for an order compelling further responses, and the

parties have submitted a joint statement regarding this discovery dispute to the Court. (Docket No.

234.) Discovery has closed in this matter.

The parties’ joint statement indicates that Plaintiffs have supplemented their interrogatory

responses since the time that the motion to compel was originally filed, but the content of those

supplemental responses is not in the record before the Court. Having reviewed the parties’s

submissions, including the parties’ briefing on Defendants’ original June 20, 2006 motion to compel,

the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants’ request for an order

Case 3:01-cv-04098-MJJ Document 240 Filed 10/18/07 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

compelling Plaintiff to provide additional discovery. 

In particular, with respect to Interrogatory No. 7, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs, to the extent

they have not already done so, to provide an amended Response that, for every doctor identified in

Plaintiffs’ earlier responses to Interrogatory No. 7:

 (a) states the full names, addresses, and telephone numbers for each such doctor, to the

extent such information is within the possession, custody or control of Plaintiffs, and

 (b) to the extent such identifying information is not within the possession, custody or control

of Plaintiffs, expressly certifies and states that such information has not been located within

Plaintiffs possession, custody or control of Plaintiff after conducting a diligent and reasonable search

for such information.

Plaintiffs shall serve such an amended Response within seven (7) days of entry of this

Order.

To the extent that Defendants seek to compel Plaintiffs to provide other information, or to

provide executed authorizations for disclosure of medical records, the Court finds that Defendants

seek relief that exceeds the scope of the propounded interrogatories addressed by their June 20, 2006

motion to compel. The Court also regards Defendants’ request that Plaintiffs be ordered not to make

any reference at the time of trial to alleged disabilities to be premature and unsupported by the

present record. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ other requests for relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:01-cv-04098-MJJ Document 240 Filed 10/18/07 Page 2 of 2