Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01145/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01145-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE D. HARBERT, ANNE

KRAJEWSKI-HARBERT,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ROBERT PRIEBE, MARK RUPPENTHAL,

ED ZELTZER, and TOWN OF MORAGA,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-01145 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

MODIFY SCHEDULING

ORDER, TO VACATE ALL

DEADLINES AND TO

STAY ACTION, AND 

VACATING HEARING

Plaintiffs appear to have initiated this § 1983 action to seek discovery to use in the

husband’s defense in a state-court prosecution for a hit-and-run fatality (or, if not, to use this

action for some other strategic purpose). At the initial case management conference, the Court

offered to stay this case until after the criminal trial was over. Plaintiffs rejected that approach. 

That was nine months ago. The Court warned counsel long ago that if they rejected a stay at the

outset, then they should not ask for a stay later on based on events in the criminal case. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel said that would be fine. Now that the discovery deadline is nearing,

plaintiffs wish to reverse field and to stay this action pending completion of the criminal trial. 

The Court finds that plaintiffs have tried to manipulate the system. This case will not be stayed. 

At a minimum, good cause to stay the case has not been shown. The case management

schedule will remain as set. 

Case 3:06-cv-01145-WHA Document 83 Filed 03/09/07 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

If, of course, counsel and the plaintiffs are actually in trial in the criminal case at the

time, then our trial will yield. That seems high unlikely on the record. 

Under Rule 16, the motion to amend yet again is DENIED. The Court allowed leave

once before to amend the complaint. Good cause have not been shown to allow another

amendment. The Court does not accept the “mistake” theory of why the amended complaint

was filed. Counsel had a duty to sign and look at whatever he filed. He must live with the

consequences of whatever he signed and filed. 

The hearing on March 29 is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01145-WHA Document 83 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 2