Williams v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 6, 20232:20-cv-00598California2,431 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CARLOS WILLIAMS, No. 2:19-cv-2345-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, (ECF No. 39.) v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. THOMAS WILLIAMS, No. 2:20-cv-598-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, (ECF No. 43.) v. ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES (CONSOLIDATED FOR DISCOVERY) COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. 21 On January 3, 2023, the parties appeared for a hearing on defendant City of Rancho Cordova’s motions to compel. (Case 2:19-cv-2345 “Carlos” at ECF No. 39; Case 2:20-cv-598 “Thomas” at ECF No. 43.) For the reasons discussed at the hearing and as discussed below, the court GRANTS IN PART defendant’s motions.

1 On July 15, 2021, the assigned district judge consolidated these cases for purposes of discovery. (ECF No. 23.) Discovery motions are referred to the assigned magistrate judge under Local Rule 302(c)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.