Case No. 17-cv-00635-CRB Notice of Discovery Dispute and Request for

Scheduling Conference and Scheduling Order

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

AMY BISSON HOLLOWAY, State Bar. No. 163731

General Counsel

EDMUNDO R. AGUILAR, State Bar No. 136142 

Assistant General Counsel

TODD M. SMITH, State Bar No. 170798

Assistant General Counsel

THOMAS H. PROUTY, State Bar No. 238950

Deputy General Counsel

California Department of Education

1430 N Street, Suite 5319

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: 916-319-0860

Facsimile: 916-319-0155

tprouty@cde.ca.gov

Attorneys for the State Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CALIFORNIA PARENTS FOR THE 

EQUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL 

MATERIALS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TOM TORLAKSON, in his official capacity as 

State Superintendent of Public Instruction and 

Director of Education for the California Department 

of Education, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 17-cv-00635-CRB

THE STATE DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE, AND REQUEST FOR 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 131 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 17-cv-00635-CRB 1 Notice of Discovery Dispute and Request for 

Scheduling Conference and Scheduling Order

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

The State Defendants1 respectfully file this document for two reasons: (1) to notify the Court of 

a discovery dispute that the parties have been unable to resolve; and (2) to request a scheduling 

conference for the purpose of arriving at a scheduling order.

Notice of Discovery Dispute

Judge Charles Breyer’s Standing Orders (revised June 11, 2015, published on the Court’s 

website) provide in part: “Motions to compel discovery are referred to a Magistrate Judge for 

assignment. Therefore, counsel are required to file a notice of discovery disputes to initiate a referral in 

lieu of filing discovery motions before this Court.”

There is a discovery dispute between Plaintiffs and the State Defendants that the parties have 

been unable to resolve. Given the above-referenced order, the State Defendants refrain from describing 

the nature of the discovery dispute in detail here, other than to say that it involves Plaintiffs’ document 

demands. The State Defendants, however, would be pleased to brief and discuss the dispute in detail 

with the Court as directed.

Request for Scheduling Conference

This case was filed on February 8, 2017, but there is no scheduling order governing the case. 

The initial case management conference was scheduled for June 16, 2017, the same date and time as the 

State Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. On that date, the Court took the motion to dismiss 

under submission, and no pretrial or trial-related deadlines were set. (Dkt. 116.) On July 13, 2017, the 

Court: entered its order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 119); and 

referred the case to Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu to conduct a settlement conference (Dkt. 120). 

Settlement conference proceedings were held in October 2017, but they did not lead to a settlement. 

(Dkt. 127-128.) Plaintiffs have engaged in discovery, and the State Defendants have responded to 

 

1 The State Defendants are the following defendants, sued only in their official capacity: Tom 

Torlakson, in his official capacity as State Superintendent of Public Instruction and Director of 

Education for the California Department of Education (“CDE”); Tom Adams, in his official capacity as 

Deputy Superintendent of the Instruction and Learning Support Branch of the CDE; Stephanie 

Gregson, in her official capacity as Director of the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources 

Division of the CDE; and Michael Kirst, Ilene Straus, Sue Burr, Bruce Holaday, Feliza I. Ortiz-Licon, 

Patricia Ann Rucker, Nicolasa Sandoval, Ting L. Sun, and Trish Boyd Williams, each in their official 

capacity as a member of California’s State Board of Education.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 131 Filed 04/25/18 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 17-cv-00635-CRB 2 Notice of Discovery Dispute and Request for 

Scheduling Conference and Scheduling Order

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

written discovery requests and produced more than eighteen thousand pages of documents, plus audio 

and video recordings, but there remains no discovery cutoff, pretrial deadlines or trial date. The State 

Defendants respectfully request a scheduling conference for the purpose of arriving at a scheduling 

order contemplated by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: April 25, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

AMY BISSON HOLLOWAY

General Counsel

EDMUNDO R. AGUILAR

Assistant General Counsel

TODD M. SMITH

Assistant General Counsel

By: /s/ Thomas Prouty

THOMAS PROUTY

Deputy General Counsel

Attorneys for the State Defendants

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 131 Filed 04/25/18 Page 3 of 3