Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02051/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02051-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1441lb Removal- Libel, Assault, Slander

---

1

17-cv-02051-WQH-JLB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Gaspar Physical Therapy, Inc., et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

David W. "Dave" Roberts, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-02051-WQH-JLB

ORDER

[ECF No. 48]

Having reviewed the papers before the Court, including Plaintiffs’ Motion seeking 

leave to conduct additional discovery for purposes of opposing Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP 

motion (ECF No. 48), and Defendants’ opposition thereto (ECF No. 50), the Court 

DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion.1

Plaintiffs’ motion is essentially a motion for reconsideration of the February 9, 2018 

order issued by District Judge William Q. Hayes. In that order, Judge Hayes held that 

“discovery must be permitted,” but “only if the[] [requests for discovery] seek information 

that (1) is in the Defendants’ exclusive control and (2) may be highly probative of issues 

on which Plaintiffs must produce evidence in order to defeat the Anti-SLAPP Motion.” 

(ECF No. 27.) That order defined the bounds of the Anti-SLAPP-related discovery granted 

in this case. Plaintiffs could have moved for reconsideration of that order. They did not.

This Court held a discovery conference on May 14, 2018 to discuss the same 

discovery disputes that are at issue in Plaintiffs’ Motion. (ECF No. 44.) In setting the 

briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion, this Court advised Plaintiffs to put in their moving 

 

1

In so ruling, the parties should move forward with the agreed upon discovery, including the timely 

deposition of Dave Roberts and the subpoena/deposition of Pacific Printing.

Case 3:17-cv-02051-WQH-MSB Document 55 Filed 06/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17-cv-02051-WQH-JLB

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

papers how the disputed discovery conforms to the previous Orders in this case. Plaintiffs 

did not. 

This Court finds that the discovery sought is outside the scope of the February 9, 

2018 order issued by Judge Hayes. Plaintiffs emphasize that allowable discovery includes 

discovery that is in the exclusive control of two defendants: Dave Roberts, and individual, 

and RE-ELECT SUPERVISOR DAVE ROBERTS, a corporation or other form of entity. 

(ECF No. 48-1 at 9.) Yet, Plaintiffs do not demonstrate how the additional discovery they 

seek is within either defendant’s exclusive control. Further, based on the current record,

the Court is not persuaded that there are significant issues of spoliation that warrant an 

expansion of Judge Hayes’ order.

This Court concludes that the requested discovery is outside the scope of Judge 

Hayes’ February 9, 2018 order. Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 48) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02051-WQH-MSB Document 55 Filed 06/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2