Filed: Aug. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On February 26, 2018, plaintiff Jaime Clavito, appearing without counsel, commenced this action against defendant the United States Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") to compel compliance with the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"); more specifically, plaintiff, a disabled veteran, seeks to compel production of documents related to his educational debt. (ECF No. 1.) 1 On May 30, 2018, the VA filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint. (ECF No
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On February 26, 2018, plaintiff Jaime Clavito, appearing without counsel, commenced this action against defendant the United States Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") to compel compliance with the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"); more specifically, plaintiff, a disabled veteran, seeks to compel production of documents related to his educational debt. (ECF No. 1.) 1 On May 30, 2018, the VA filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint. (ECF No...
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
On February 26, 2018, plaintiff Jaime Clavito, appearing without counsel, commenced this action against defendant the United States Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") to compel compliance with the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"); more specifically, plaintiff, a disabled veteran, seeks to compel production of documents related to his educational debt. (ECF No. 1.)1
On May 30, 2018, the VA filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint. (ECF No. 10.)
A status conference in the matter was set for August 23, 2018, and the parties were ordered to file status reports addressing specific topics no later than seven (7) days prior to the conference. (ECF No. 6.) On August 15, 2018, the VA filed a status report. (ECF No. 10.) Although the applicable deadline has now passed, no status report was filed by plaintiff.2 Upon review of the VA's status report, the status conference was vacated, with a written scheduling order to follow.
In its status report, the VA requests the court to defer scheduling of discovery and trial dates pending a motion for summary judgment it intends to file in the next 60 days. At least at this juncture, it does not appear appropriate to schedule discovery deadlines or any trial dates. See Lane v. Dep't of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that discovery in FOIA cases is limited, and that courts may allow the government to move for summary judgment before the plaintiff conducts discovery). However, if plaintiff believes that any specific discovery is necessary to respond to the VA's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff may outline the specific discovery requested in his opposition to that motion for summary judgment. The court will then determine whether such discovery is necessary prior to ruling on the VA's motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Discovery in this action is STAYED pending further order of the court.
2. The VA shall file any motion for summary judgment within 60 days of this order, and shall notice that motion for a hearing in accordance with Local Rule 230.3
3. Consistent with Local Rule 230, plaintiff shall file any opposition to the motion for summary judgment no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing date. Plaintiff's opposition shall address BOTH: (a) the merits of the VA's arguments; and (b) if plaintiff requests to conduct discovery, the specific discovery requested. Importantly, plaintiff's opposition shall set forth all his arguments in opposition to the VA's motion, in addition to a request to conduct discovery, if any.
4. Consistent with Local Rule 230, the VA shall file its reply brief no later than seven (7) days prior to the hearing date.
5. Upon resolution of the VA's motion for summary judgment, the court will issue a further scheduling order, if necessary.
