From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

R.P. v. City of San Francisco

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jul 30, 2024
24-cv-00522-LJC (N.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2024)

Opinion

24-cv-00522-LJC

07-30-2024

R.P., Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant.


ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME RE: DKT. NOS. 25, 40, 41

LISA J. CISNEROS United States Magistrate Judge

The parties have filed a stipulated proposed protective order. ECF No. 40. Section F.6 of this Court's Standing Order requires parties to file a declaration identifying and explaining any deviations from the Court's model protective order, or confirming that no such changes exist other than case-identifying information or the deletion of language denoted as optional. The parties are directed to file such a declaration no later than August 2, 2024. The Court will address the proposed protective order after that declaration is filed.

The parties have also stipulated to extend time for Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to identify and serve Doe Defendants from July 29, 2024 to October 29, 2024. The Court authorized Plaintiff to take discovery to identify Doe Defendants on May 2, 2024. It is not clear why more than five months are necessary to identify the defendants Plaintiff wishes to sue. The Court nevertheless GRANTS the stipulation based on the parties' agreement to that timeline, taking into account the fact that Defendant the City and County of San Francisco (which has agreed to the stipulation) will presumably defend any individual defendants whom Plaintiff might name. Any further request to extend that deadline must be supported by a more specific showing of need, including the steps Plaintiff has taken to identify the Doe Defendants, any additional discovery Plaintiff intends to pursue, and the reasons Plaintiff was unable to complete that discovery before the deadline.

In light of the agreed extension of time before any amendment to Plaintiffs' Complaint is expected, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendant bringing a renewed motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if Plaintiff fails to amend his Complaint within the time allowed for him to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

R.P. v. City of San Francisco

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jul 30, 2024
24-cv-00522-LJC (N.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2024)
Case details for

R.P. v. City of San Francisco

Case Details

Full title:R.P., Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Jul 30, 2024

Citations

24-cv-00522-LJC (N.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2024)