Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05796/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05796-57/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

TODD ASHKER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 09-5796 CW

ORDER AMENDING 

SCHEDULE and 

GRANTING MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

A SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEF(Docket Nos. 

353 and 360) 

Plaintiffs Todd Ashker, et al., have filed a motion for entry

of an amended scheduling order (Docket No. 353). Defendants

Governor Edmund G. Brown, et al., have filed an opposition. In 

addition, Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a 

supplemental brief in support of their aforementioned motion

(Docket No. 360). 

In their scheduling amendment motion, Plaintiffs requested

an extension of time of one month to each deadline for disclosure 

of identities and reports of expert witnesses and rebuttal expert 

reports. They also sought a two-week extension for the completion 

of expert discovery. Plaintiffs argued that, due to Magistrate 

Judge Vadas’ order requiring Defendants to produce all outstanding 

discovery by January 6, 2015, the number of weeks Plaintiffs had

to prepare expert reports decreased from nine weeks to less than 

six weeks. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are seeking a review of 

Magistrate Judge Vadas’ order, in which he denied Plaintiffs’ 

Case 4:09-cv-05796-CW Document 369 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

similar request. However, Magistrate Judge Vadas did not deny the 

motion on its merits; rather he ruled that any further requests 

for extensions of time had to be addressed to this Court 

(“Plaintiffs’ proper course of action for an extension of those 

deadlines is to raise their requests in a motion before the 

district judge”). Docket No. 352. 

In their motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in 

support of their motion to amend the schedule, Plaintiffs argue 

that Defendants have not complied with Magistrate Judge Vadas’ 

order to produce all outstanding discovery by January 6, 2015. 

Plaintiffs listed seven examples of documents and things 

Defendants were ordered to produce but did not. Defendants argue 

that Plaintiffs’ characterization of their compliance with the 

discovery order is misleading. 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of an amended 

discovery schedule (Docket No. 353) and GRANTS leave to file the 

proffered supplemental brief in support of their motion (Docket 

No. 360). Disclosure of identities and reports of expert 

witnesses and rebuttal expert reports shall be completed no later 

than March 13, 2015 and April 15, 2015, respectively. Expert 

discovery shall be completed by May 29, 2015. All other dates 

remain the same.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 21, 2015 CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-05796-CW Document 369 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 2