Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04217/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04217-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN JOHNSON,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-4217 MMC (BZ)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY

PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

By Order dated May 25, 2007, the Honorable Maxine M.

Chesney referred to me plaintiff’s motions to modify the

Court’s pretrial preparation order and to shorten time

thereon. In my May 31, 2007 Briefing Order, I granted to

motion to shorten time and directed the parties to brief the

motion to modify. The motion having been fully briefed, I

conclude that no hearing is necessary to resolve it. For the

reasons discussed, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part.

By his motion, plaintiff seeks to modify the Court’s

Pretrial Preparation Order [Docket No. 11] to extend the Non-

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-04217-MMC Document 72 Filed 06/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1 July 13 is also the date set to cut off expert

discovery.

2

expert discovery cutoff date from May 18 to July 13.1

Plaintiff asserts that the extension is required to allow him

to conduct discovery relating to the claims and defenses of

newly-added defendants China Basin Ballpark Company and the

San Francisco Giants. The new defendants were added in an

amended complaint approved by Order dated May 8, 2007. The

amended complaint was based in large part on discovery

received from the original defendants on April 2. According

to plaintiff, the discovery indicated that the original

defendants and the new defendants may have acted jointly on

the night of the incident, possibly rendering the new

defendants liable under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 

Under the circumstances, I conclude that the Non-expert

discovery date should be extended to allow for some

additional, limited discovery. Plaintiff is correct that

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 establishes a party’s right

to discover non-privileged matters relevant to the claims or

defenses of another party. New defendants have filed an

answer to the amended complaint that denies multiple

allegations and includes twenty-three affirmative defenses. 

Plaintiff should have some opportunity to take discovery

relating to new defendants’ answer. 

At the same time, plaintiff cannot be given an unlimited

opportunity to conduct discovery that he could have and should

have conducted prior to the addition of the new defendants. 

Moreover, defendants request that if I extend discovery, other

Case 3:06-cv-04217-MMC Document 72 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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 July 13, proposed by plaintiff, is too short an

extension given that the extension is granted June 14.

3

pre-trial dates be extended. In fairness, a slight adjustment

to some of the deadlines is appropriate. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED

in part as follows:

1. The Non-expert discovery cut-off date is extended to

July 31, 2007;2

2. As to the new defendants, plaintiff may proceed with

discovery relating to the claims and defenses contained in the

new defendants’ answer;

3. As to the original defendants, plaintiff’s discovery

will be limited to those matters relevant to plaintiff’s

allegation that they and the new defendants acted jointly so

as to render the new defendants liable under 42 U.S.C. section

1983; 

4. Dispositive motions will be filed no later than

August 10, 2007, and shall be noticed for hearing 35 days

thereafter;

5. Lead trial counsel will meet and confer pursuant to

Civil L.R. 16-10(b)(5) no later than September 17, 2007. 

All other dates remain as ordered by Judge Chesney in her

Pretrial Preparation Order dated October 23, 2006.

Dated: June 14, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\Johnson v. SF\ORD.MODIFY.PRETRIAL.PREP.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-04217-MMC Document 72 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 3