Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00210/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00210-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\SDMINUTEMEN0210\MINUTE04.wpd

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO MINUTEMEN v.

CAL. BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY Case No. 08cv0210 WQH(RBB)

Time Spent: 

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS CT. DEPUTY VICKY LEE Rptr. 

Attorneys

Plaintiffs Defendants

David Hayek Jeff Benowitz 

 Stephanie Martin 

 

PROCEEDINGS: In Chambers In Court Telephonic

On March 14, 2008, Defendants filed their Objection and Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Application for Early Discovery [doc. no. 21]. The Court had

previously found good cause for Expedited Discovery and granted Plaintiff’s

Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery on February 4, 2008 [doc. no.

10]. 

After considering the Defendants’ Objection, the Court reaffirms its finding

of good cause for expedited discovery. Good cause exists when “the need for

expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice,

outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo

Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Even Stanley

v. University of Southern California, 13 F.3d 1313, 1326 (9th Cir. 1994),

cited by Defendants, does not support their objection. In Stanley, the court

noted that the Plaintiff requesting injunctive relief could have sought a

court order for discovery to support her motion for a preliminary injunction. 

Id. Defendants’ objection is overruled.

DATE: March 17, 2008 IT IS SO ORDERED: _________________________

Ruben B. Brooks, 

U.S. Magistrate Judge 

cc: Judge Hayes INITIALS: VL (mg/irc) Deputy

 All Parties of Record

Case 3:08-cv-00210-WQH-RBB Document 22 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 1