Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981-12/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGIE CHERRY and ESTORIA CHERRY, on

behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO

(“City College”) LAWRENCE WONG, in his

official capacity as President of the Board of

Trustees, MILTON MARKS, III, in his official

capacity as Vice-President of the Board of Trustees,

DR. NATALIE BERG, JOHNNIE CARTER, JR.,

DR. ANITA GRIER, JULIO J. RAMOS, RODEL

E. RODIS, in their official capacities as members

of the Board of Trustees, and DR. PHILIP R. RAY,

JR., in his official capacity as Chancellor,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-04981 WHA

ORDER REGARDING LETTERS

OF JULY 22, 2005

This order addresses the letters received from both sides, dated July 22, 2005. A

telephone conference will be scheduled for plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery. The issue of

whether the fact-discovery cutoff should be extended will also be discussed at that time. The

Court does not contemplate that it will be necessary to depose all 200+ class members, as

predicted by plaintiffs’ counsel. Interviews may be sought, of course, but it would be wasteful

to conduct 200 depositions. It may be worthwhile, however, for a few selected class members

to be deposed.

For the time being, the Court is disappointed that plaintiffs’ counsel has postponed site

inspections. This case was brought as a class action and the Court does not understand why site

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 251 Filed 07/22/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

inspections for all campuses of City College were not conducted accordingly, at least

immediately after the class certification order of June 15, 2005, if not before.

With regard to the misdirected class notices that were returned as undeliverable, the

Court does not intend to delay turning over the names and contact information of class members

to plaintiffs’ counsel. In the meantime, defendants’ counsel should attempt once again to mail

the class notice to the corrected addresses for those that were returned. This should be done

immediately. As the class notice provided that objections may be postmarked by July 26, 2005,

the release of names and contact information to plaintiffs’ counsel (under a protective order)

will not occur until August 1, 2005, at the earliest. If any recipient in the second round of

mailings objects to the disclosure of their confidential information after this date, plaintiffs’

counsel will be ordered to refrain from using that data.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2005 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 251 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2