From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

D.M. v. Cnty. of Merced

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 9, 2022
1:20-cv-00409-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2022)

Opinion

1:20-cv-00409-JLT-SAB

06-09-2022

D.M., et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., Defendants.


DEADLINE: JUNE 10, 2022

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE (ECF NO. 71)

(ECF NOS. 71, 77, 84, 90)

On May 4, 2022, the Court issued an order as to Plaintiffs' two most recent motions to compel production of documents. (ECF No. 84.) As to Plaintiffs' motion to compel related to requests for production (RPDs) 10 and 11 (ECF No. 71), the Court granted the motion but declined to issue sanctions at that time. As to Plaintiffs' motion to compel related to RPDs 20 and 21 (ECF No. 77), the Court declined to issue a ruling and instead ordered the parties to meet and confer in person, and set an informal discovery meeting. Finally, the Court continued the hearing on both motions to June 15, 2022.

On June 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a unilateral supplemental statement regarding the discovery disputes. (ECF No. 90.) Plaintiffs noted the disputes regarding RPDs 20 and 21 (ECF No. 77) have been resolved and Plaintiffs are withdrawing their request for sanctions as to that matter. However, as to the dispute regarding RPDs 10 and 11 (ECF No. 71), Plaintiffs identify ongoing issues regarding Defendants' failure to produce all responsive documents as previously ordered by the Court (based on Defendants' claim that their document searches are still not yet complete), and Defendants' refusal to reopen depositions of the witnesses whose testimony Plaintiffs maintain is affected by the 4300 supplemental documents Defendants have recently produced in response to the RPDs and Court's order. Plaintiffs seek a further order compelling immediate production of the responsive documents still due, reopening the depositions of the identified witnesses, and requiring Defendants to bear the costs for those depositions. Plaintiffs' supplemental statement, while addressing many issues previously addressed by the prior motion to compel and during the original hearing on that motion, nonetheless concerns new developments with respect to these issues to which Defendants must respond in order for the Court to properly evaluate the parties' dispute at the June 15 hearing. Thus, Defendants shall be ordered to file a responsive statement.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall file a statement responsive to Plaintiffs' supplemental statement (ECF No. 90) no later than close of business June 10, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

D.M. v. Cnty. of Merced

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 9, 2022
1:20-cv-00409-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2022)
Case details for

D.M. v. Cnty. of Merced

Case Details

Full title:D.M., et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 9, 2022

Citations

1:20-cv-00409-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2022)