Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04927/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04927-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Adam Snyder, Jade Santoro, No. C 03-4927 JSW (WDB)

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MR. SANTORO'S

REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR

HIS DEPOSITION AND CONFIRMING

DATE FOR HEARING ON DEFENDANTS'

MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS

v. 

City and County of San Francisco, et al.

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Having considered the papers submitted by the partiesthat address plaintiff Santoro’s “Ex

Parte [not really] Motion for Extension/Renewal of Time for Giving Deposition,” the Court

hereby DENIES the motion. The considerations described by Mr. Santoro and his new counsel

are not sufficient to excuse his failure to comply with this Court’s Order of June 23, 2005. 

Being ‘discouraged and disappointed’ is part of being alive. Mr. Santoro has known for

a very long time that he would be required to give his deposition in this case. He should have

maintained contact with his lawyer and taken care to assure that he understood what his

obligations in this case were. He is a plaintiff. It is his duty to prosecute the matter responsibly.

He did not. 

As his new lawyer points out, he has given testimony about the underlying events no

fewer than four times – in other cases. He cannot claim ignorance of the process – and he has

had ample opportunity to present his account of the events. Judge White will decide to what

Case 3:03-cv-04927-JSW Document 230 Filed 11/08/05 Page 1 of 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

extent, if any, Mr. Santoro will be permitted to use testimony given in other settings to advance

his purposes in this case.

In addition to considering the materials discussed above, the Court has reviewed all of

the submissions relevant to defendants' pending motion for terminating sanctions. Pursuant to

that review, the Court DENIES defendants' motions for sanctions to the extent that they request

terminating sanctions. This most severe of penalties is not justified on the record developed

in this case.

The undersigned will consider, however, defendants’ motions for monetary sanctions.

The hearing on defendants’ petition for that form of relief will be held on November 30, 2005,

at 2:30 p.m. Counsel for defendants, plaintiff Santoro's current and former counsel (Andrew

Schwartz, Esq.), and Mr. Santoro must appear in person at the hearing. 

Plaintiff Santoro's response, if any, to defendants' request for monetary sanctions must

be e-filed by no later than November 23, 2005, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2005 /s/ Wayne D. Brazil 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to:

Parties via e-filing,

Andrew Schwarz, Esq.

(via facsimile and mail)

WDB, JSW

Case 3:03-cv-04927-JSW Document 230 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 2