Lake

Lake v. City of Vallejo

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 30, 20232:19-cv-01439California8,831 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH LAKE, No. 2:19–cv–1439–DAD–KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. (ECF Nos. 140, 141, 142, 146.) CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., Defendants. 16 Currently pending before the undersigned1 are three motions from plaintiff concerning the course of discovery in this case (ECF Nos. 140, 141, 142), defendants’ opposition and request for a protective order (ECF No. 143), and the court’s order to show cause, with plaintiff’s response, regarding sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel (ECF Nos. 146, 147, 148). The court held a hearing on these matters on November 28, 2023. For the reasons discussed at the hearing and as stated below: (I) plaintiff’s request for reconsideration on the reopening of discovery is DENIED; (II) the parties are ordered to confer over the scope of plaintiff’s attempts to depose a Rule 30(b)(6) witness, as outlined at the hearing and in this order; and (III) plaintiff’s counsel is SANCTIONED $750 under the…

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.