Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03396/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03396-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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NOT FOR CITATION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

GARY HOWARD KIDGELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, COUNTY OF

SANTA CLARA SHERIFF’S DEPT.;

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICERS

WHEELER #2595, QUIRO #2705,

CUNNINGHAM #2699, TAIARIOL #2701,

ROGGY #2365, ROHDES #1712, HELIKSON

#2016, ASBAN #1939, DEPUTY MORIN

#0321; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

STAFF LOUELLA MANZANO AND DOES 1

through 50,

Defendants. /

No. C08-03396 JW (HRL)

INTERIM ORDER RE DEFENDANT

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

Defendant County of Santa Clara (“County”) moves for an order compelling pro se

plaintiff Gary Kidgell to produce documents. This court has not received any opposition to that

motion. And, based on the County’s reply papers, it appears that there is no dispute as to

whether and what documents should be produced. The only question is when plaintiff should

produce (or should have already produced) them. This court finds the matter suitable for

disposition without oral argument, and the March 2, 2010 motion hearing is vacated. Civ. L.R.

7-1(b). No later than March 1, 2010, the County shall file a status report either (a) identifying

the specific documents that remain outstanding or (b) confirming that the matter has been

*E-FILED 02-22-2010*

Case 5:08-cv-03396-EJD Document 78 Filed 02/22/10 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

resolved and that the motion is moot. Assuming that the matter is not resolved, the motion will

then be deemed submitted on the papers.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

February 22, 2010

Case 5:08-cv-03396-EJD Document 78 Filed 02/22/10 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

5:08-cv-03396-JW Notice electronically mailed to:

David Michael Rollo david.rollo@cco.sccgov.org, anna.espiritu@cco.sccgov.org

Neysa A. Fligor neysa.fligor@cco.sccgov.org

Rima Harbans Singh rima.singh@cco.sccgov.org, marylou.gonzales@cco.sccgov.org

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.

5:08-cv-03396-JW Notice mailed to: 

Gary Howard Kidgell

228 Spruce Street

Wichita, KS 67214

Pro Se Plaintiff

Case 5:08-cv-03396-EJD Document 78 Filed 02/22/10 Page 3 of 3