Free Order on Motion for More Definite Statement - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-cv-03011-RS

Document 25

Filed 11/13/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RICK BREWSTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al., Defendants. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 07-03011 RS ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE *E-FILED 11/13/07*

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On October 16, 2007, the Court issued an order clarifying that discovery in this action is not presently open, but providing plaintiffs an opportunity to file a brief setting forth any reasons they believe discovery should be permitted prior to hearing the cross-motions for summary judgment that the Court directed the parties to file in its order of September 19, 2007. Plaintiffs have responded that the discovery they are seeking is relevant to the issues presented in this action and have articulated reasons they believe that to be so. Plaintiffs have not, however, identified any reason that this case differs from numerous other cases resolved in this District on summary judgment without prior discovery proceedings. See, e.g., Dong v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 2601107 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2007) (holding delay in processing I-485 application of close to two years unreasonable as a matter of law); Gelder v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 902382 at *3 (N.D. Cal. March 22, 2007) (holding that a more than two year delay in processing unreasonable as a matter of law); Clayton v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 2904049 at * 6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2007) (recognizing that courts within the district have adopted two years as an unreasonable amount of time.). 1

Case 5:07-cv-03011-RS

Document 25

Filed 11/13/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Under the circumstances, plaintiffs have not shown that it would be appropriate to permit discovery at this juncture. This ruling is without prejudice should it subsequently appear that discovery is necessary to resolve the issues presented by the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 13, 2007 RICHARD SEEBORG United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY C 07-03011 RS

2

Case 5:07-cv-03011-RS

Document 25

Filed 11/13/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO: Ila Casy Deiss [email protected], [email protected]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. AND A COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO: Rick G Brewster 1513 Flamingo Way Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Daomin Yang 1513 Flamingo Way Sunnyale, CA 94087 Dated: 11/13/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg By: /s/ BAK

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY C 07-03011 RS

3