Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01978/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01978-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN F. ROGERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01978-SI 

ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S

AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT 

RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 37

Having reviewed Defendant Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco’s Amended 

Separate Statement Regarding Discovery Dispute, the Court finds as follows:

1. Defendant’s Interrogatories: In accordance with the parties’ meet and confer proposal, 

plaintiff Brian Rogers shall provide (a) further responses to defendant’s interrogatories 

numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17 and (b) an amended response to 

interrogatory number 13, limited to the period from 1998 to the present, no later than 

February 10, 2020.

2. Defendant’s Requests for Admission: In light of the Court’s November 25, 2019 Order at 

docket number 29, the Court finds defendant’s requests for admission (set one) outside the 

scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).

3. Defendant’s Requests for Production: Plaintiff Brian Rogers shall respond to defendant’s 

request for production numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 no later than February 10, 2020. 

The Court finds request for production number 6 outside the scope of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(b)(1).

Case 3:19-cv-01978-SI Document 38 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

The Court DENIES defendant’s request to proceed with a motion to compel discovery 

responses, finding it not yet ripe. The Court also is not inclined to revise the current deadline for 

the parties to move for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01978-SI Document 38 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 2