Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228-48/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

Case No. 13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS

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

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS

(Re: Docket Nos. 323, 341, 354, 386, 389, 

390, 391, 392, 393, 394)

Plaintiffs Adil and Roda Hiramanek have filed a total of ten discovery motions scheduled 

for hearing on four separate dates over the next six weeks.1 Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), the court 

finds that all of these motions are suitable for disposition without oral argument.2 The hearings for 

these motions are vacated.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

See Docket Nos. 323, 341, 354, 386, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394.

2 Civ. L.R. 7-1(b) provides that a motion may be determined without oral argument “[i]n the 

Judge’s discretion.” Plaintiffs previously have argued that deciding a motion without an oral 

hearing denies the movants their day in court. See, e.g., Docket No. 334. However, “it is well 

settled that oral argument is not necessary to satisfy due process.” Docket No. 396 at 6 (quoting 

Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 196 n.4 (9th Cir. 1992)). The court will rule on these motions after 

fully considering the parties’ arguments in their papers.

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 398 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 1