Opinion
2:20-cv-2482-WBS-AC 2:21-cv-0038-WBS-AC
12-10-2021
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, in her official capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendant. COUNTY OF AMADOR, a public agency of the State of California, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON in her official capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; PATRICK COVELLO in his official capacity of Warden of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Mule Creek State Prison; and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendants.
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW L. PACKARD ANDREW L. PACKARD Attorneys for Plaintiff CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE. BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP GENE TANAKA SHAWN D. HAGERTY REBECCA ANDREWS Attorneys for Plaintiff COUNTY OF AMADOR.
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW L. PACKARD ANDREW L. PACKARD Attorneys for Plaintiff CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE.
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP GENE TANAKA SHAWN D. HAGERTY REBECCA ANDREWS Attorneys for Plaintiff COUNTY OF AMADOR.
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) PAGE LIMIT FOR JOINT STATEMENT RE DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT UNDER MAGISTRATE CLAIRE'S STANDING ORDER REGARDING LOCAL RULE 51
ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel access to the Mule Creek State Prison operated by Defendants in this action (ECF Document No. 22);
WHEREAS, the motion seeks to address all of Defendants' objections to the First Request for Inspection of Land and Property (“Dry Inspection Request”) and the Second Request for Inspection of Land and Property (“Wet Inspections Request”), most of which are common to both sets of objections;
WHEREAS, the efficient resolution of these issues in a single proceeding will establish the ground rules for the Facility inspections in this case, avoiding the need to come back to the Court for each successive inspection request;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have prepared the initial draft Joint Statement Re Discovery Disagreement (“Draft Joint Statement”) due on December 15, 2021, serving it on Defendants on December 8, 2021;
WHEREAS, the recitation of the discovery requests at issue, and objections thereto, without more, is over 21 pages, rendering the full document, before Defendants' edits, roughly 37 pages in length;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have requested that Defendants either withdraw some of their objections or agree to jointly request that the Court grant a waiver of the 25-page limit set forth in Magistrate Claire's Standing Orders; and, WHEREAS, at the time of this filing, Defendants have not agreed to either withdraw some of their objections or to join in this request.
THEREFORE, good cause appearing, Plaintiffs hereby request that the parties be granted a waiver of the 25-page limit set forth in Magistrate Claire's Standing Orders as set forth in the [Proposed] Order below.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are granted a waiver of the 25-page limit set forth in Magistrate Claire's Standing Orders;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties' Joint Statement Re Discover Disputes in the pending motion to compel site inspections shall be limited to 50 pages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.