Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Martinez v. City of Fresno

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 21, 2009

LUPE E. MARTINEZ, IN BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND RALPH C. RENDON, IN BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED. PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF FRESNO; JERRY DYER, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE CHIEF OF THE FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT; SGT. MICHAEL MANFREDI; OFFICER MARCUS K. TAFOYA; OFFICER BELINDA ANAYA, AND DOES 1-20, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RE CLARIFICATION REQUEST REGARDING COURT JANUARY 20, 2009,

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT MICHAEL MANFREDI TO PLAINTIFFS' (Document 142)

On December 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel responses by Defendant Michael Manfredi to Plaintiffs' Special Interrogatories, Set No. One. The parties filed a Joint Statement of Discovery Disagreements Re: Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel on January 13, 2009. Finding the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, the Court vacated the January 16, 2009 hearing. On January 20, 2009, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel in part and denying the motion in part.

On January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs filed the instant clarification request regarding the Court's January 20, 2009. In the request, Plaintiffs first ask the Court to order Defendant Manfredi to serve supplemental responses to Plaintiffs' Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 on or before February 2, 2009. As the Court's order did not specify a date for supplemental responses, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' request. Defendant Manfredi shall serve supplemental responses on or before February 2, 2009.

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to schedule a new hearing date to allow Plaintiffs' counsel to fully present Plaintiffs' position to the Court regarding Special Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Plaintiffs' counsel explains that counsel did not have an opportunity to properly reply because defense counsel e-mailed its position/opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses at 11:17 p.m. on January 12, 2009.

Local Rule 37-251 regarding motions dealing with discovery matters indicates that all arguments and briefing that would otherwise be included in a memorandum of points and authorities supporting or opposing the motion shall be included in the joint statement, and no separate briefing shall be filed. Local Rule 37-251(c). As the joint statement was filed on January 13, 2009, and not on January 12, 2009, there is no indication that Plaintiffs' counsel did not have an opportunity to include all arguments and briefing in the joint statement. Further, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for submission without the necessity of oral argument. Local Rule 78-230(h). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request for a new hearing date is DENIED.*fn1

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.