Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

Order (No: 4:10-cv-04641-PJH (LB)) 

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ALFRED LAM, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE CITY & COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 4:10-cv-04641-PJH (LB) 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE THE PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL FILED ON 

AUGUST 6, 2015 

[Re: ECF No. 141] 

Judge Hamilton referred all discovery disputes in this case to the undersigned. (6/6/2012 

Minute Order, ECF No. 48.1

) The court previously told the parties that they must comply with the 

undersigned’s standing order when bringing discovery disputes to the court’s attention. (Notice of 

Referral, ECF No. 50 (attaching standing order); 7/23/2015 Order, ECF No. 132 at 6 (stating that 

the parties must meet and confer regarding discovery disputes and may thereafter file a joint letter 

brief).) The parties may not file formal discovery motions. Instead, the standing order requires the 

parties to meet and confer in an attempt to resolve their discovery disputes, and if they cannot 

resolve them, to file a joint letter brief. 

Nonetheless, on August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the defendants to 

 

1

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of the documents. 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 142 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-04641-PJH (LB)) 

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 

respond to their interrogatories, requests for admission, and request for production of documents. 

(Motion to Compel, ECF No. 141 at 2-3.) They also ask for more time to respond to the 

defendants’ discovery. (Id. at 3.) The plaintiffs also improperly noticed the motion for hearing on 

August 13, 2015 in violation of Civil Local Rule 7-2(a), which provides that, “[e]xcept as 

otherwise ordered or permitted by the assigned Judge or these Local Rules, and except for motions 

made during the course of a trial or hearing, all motions must be filed, served and noticed in 

writing on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge for hearing not less than 35 days after filing 

of the motion.” 

The court denies without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion to compel because they did not 

comply with the standing order (attached). 

This disposes of ECF No. 141. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 10, 2015 _____________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 142 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 2