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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAFAR AFSHAR,

NO. CIV. S-04-1088 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO

POLICE DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; and SHERIFF

LOU BLANAS, individually and in his

official capacity as Sheriff of the

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department,

Defendants.

 /

Pending on the August 7, 2006 law and motion calendar is

defendants’ motion to alter or amend the court’s June 13, 2006

order in the above-captioned case. The court is in receipt of

plaintiff’s opposition to the motion. The court decides the matter

based on the papers filed herein and without oral argument.

On June 13, 2006, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to

amend the scheduling order to re-open the discovery. The court reopened discovery on the grounds that there were certain documents

and information in possession of defendants and that this

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 132 Filed 07/26/06 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

1

 Although defendants count 125 requests, the court’s review

of the same document reveals only 68. This discrepancy, however,

is inconsequential. 

2

information was not in existence at the time of discovery. It

also appeared to the court that plaintiff sought to “depose several

people whose names were not known to plaintiff prior to the close

of discovery.” June 13, 2006 Order at 5:6-7. Plaintiff’s counsel

maintained that he learned of these documents and people after

reading several recent articles in the Sacramento Bee. Id. at

5:12. This evidence is relevant to plaintiff’s Monell claim. Id.

at 6:5. In its order, the court explained that it was re-opening

discovery on a limited basis. Id. at 7:8-9. Defendants seek

clarification as to the meaning of “limited.” Given the subsequent

developments in the case, the court sees the need for

clarification. 

On June 22, 2006, plaintiff served what appears to be 68

separate requests for production on defendants. See Pl.’s Request

for Production, Ex. B of Dec. of Robert Chalfant. Defendants

maintain that there were 125 such requests1 and of those, “only 19

(see Requests 1, 3, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,

66, 67, 68 and 60) actually relate to the supplemental disclosure

filed by plaintiff, and that plaintiff sought reopen discovery as

to.” Defs.’ Mot. to Alt. at 4:2-5. Defendants ask the court to

clarify its June 13, 2006 order and limit the discovery to only the

information that was revealed after the close of discovery. 

////

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 132 Filed 07/26/06 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

The court has reviewed the 68 requests and agrees with

defendants that only a handful of these requests pertain to the

information identified by plaintiff as being “new.” Indeed, many

of the requests relate to information that was in existence at the

time of discovery. The court therefore clarifies its previous

order. The June 13, 2006 order is hereby AMENDED to include the

following language:

1. Discovery shall be limited to the people and documents

identified by plaintiff in plaintiff’s notice of supplemental

disclosures filed on April 12, 2006 and in plaintiff’s motion to

amend the scheduling order filed on May 16, 2006. 

2. Disputes as to discovery shall be taken up before the

magistrate judge assigned to the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 DATED: July 25, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 132 Filed 07/26/06 Page 3 of 3