Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00377/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00377-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARQUES PHILLIPS and CYNTHIA

PHILLIPS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, et al.,

Defendants.

Civ. S-04-0377 FCD PAN

ORDER

—NFN—

Defendants have again filed an ex parte application to

shorten time due to the September 30, 2005, discovery deadline in

this case. The application is granted. E. D. Cal. L. R. 6-144. 

The parties have submitted a joint stipulation pursuant to

E. D. Cal. L. R. 37-251. As oral argument is unnecessary to

resolve this matter, defendants’ motion is submitted on the

papers.

Defendants seek an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)

Case 2:04-cv-00377-FCD-EFB Document 96 Filed 09/09/05 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

2

compelling plaintiffs to respond to the following outstanding

discovery requests: Defendant City of Fairfield’s Request for

Production of Documents to Plaintiff Cynthia Phillips (Set Two),

Defendant Mark Shraer’s Interrogatories to Plaintiff Marques

Phillips (Set Two), Defendant City of Fairfield’s Request for

Production of Documents to Plaintiff Marques Phillips (Set Two),

and Defendant Mark Shraer’s Interrogatories to Plaintiff Cynthia

Phillips (Set One). Defendants also seek sanctions.

Each of the above requests was propounded upon plaintiffs’

former attorney, William Collier, on February 24, 2005. When Mr.

Collier was granted leave to withdraw from this case on May 27,

2005, no responses had been provided defendants. Plaintiffs

retained new counsel, Mister Phillips, on June 17, 2005, and on

July 28, the Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr., extended the

discovery deadline to September 30. On August 11, 2005,

defendants wrote a letter to Mr. Phillips requesting all

responses by August 19. On August 18, Mr. Phillips emailed

defendants stating he was working on the responses, required a

copy of one request, and would be unable to complete the work by

August 19. Defendants granted an extension to August 26. On

August 29, defendants emailed Mr. Phillips informing him they

would file a motion to compel if they did not receive plaintiffs’

responses that day. Mr. Phillips left a voice mail at

defendants’ office that evening to which defendants responded by

letter dated August 30, “We will consider this your attempt to

meet and confer over these matters . . . we will need to file a

Case 2:04-cv-00377-FCD-EFB Document 96 Filed 09/09/05 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

3

motion to compel if we do not receive it [the discovery

responses] tomorrow by 10:00 am.” More communications ensued but

none reflect refusal by Mr. Phillips to provide the responses,

only the need for additional time. 

Mr. Phillips states in the joint stipulation, “I did not

even know that the Defendants still needed responses until they

notified me on or around August 11, 2005. That was just 20 days

ago. I told the Defendants that I would provide them responses,

and I will. I just have not had the time.”

Defendants’ motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall provide

defendants with all responses to the above-noted discovery

requests on or before September 20, 2005. Defendants’ request

for sanctions is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: September 8, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00377-FCD-EFB Document 96 Filed 09/09/05 Page 3 of 3