Chism v. County of San Bernardino
District Court, C.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER (1) SETTING ASIDE THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY; (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL, SUBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER; AND (3) VACATING THE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TIMLIN, District Judge.
After consideration of the papers in support of and opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to *533reconsider the magistrate judge’s ruling on plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to plaintiffs’ request to produce records and interrogatories (first set) (the motion) pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 72(a),…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kelly v. City of San JoseDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1987
- Miller v. PancucciDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1992
- Hampton v. City of San DiegoDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1993
3Cited by21 opinions
- Soto v. City of ConcordDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1995
- Green v. BacaDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2005
- Bryant v. ArmstrongDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2012
- Price v. County of San DiegoDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1996
- Skyline Wesleyan Church v. California Department of Managed Health CareDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2017
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.