Best v. Virgil Smith
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-02252
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Best v. Smith, Judge Rogers denied Best’s extension and sanctions motions, deemed a discovery brief withdrawn, and referred discovery to Magistrate Judge Ryu.
Pro se plaintiff Brian Best and defendant Virgil Smith; discovery was referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.
What happened
In Best v. Virgil Smith, pro se plaintiff Brian Best asked for more time to file a third amended complaint and sought sanctions. Defendant Virgil Smith submitted a letter brief about ongoing discovery disputes, and the court heard the matters on March 5, 2021.
The court denied both of Best’s motions and deemed Smith’s discovery letter brief withdrawn based on his counsel’s statements at the hearing. The court referred discovery to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu and ordered the parties to meet and confer and identify any remaining discovery disputes. Best may still file a separate motion seeking permission to file a third amended complaint, with the proposed complaint attached and with the required explanation of good cause.
Judge Yvonne Rogers issued the order and terminated Docket Numbers 83, 85, and 88. The order addressed scheduling, sanctions, discovery, and possible amendment of the complaint; it did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Best v. Virgil Smith · No. 4:19-cv-02252
- Yvonne Rogers
- Mar. 5, 2021
Background
Pro se plaintiff Brian Best filed a motion for an extension of time to file a third amended complaint on January 8, 2021. He filed a motion for sanctions on January 29, 2021. Defendant Virgil Smith filed a discovery letter brief describing ongoing discovery issues. The court heard the matters by videoconference on March 5, 2021.
Rulings
The court denied Best’s motion for an extension of time and denied his motion for sanctions. It deemed Smith’s discovery letter brief withdrawn based on representations made by defense counsel at the hearing.
The court referred discovery in the action to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. It ordered the parties to meet and confer by noon on March 8, 2021, exchange two-page descriptions of any remaining discovery disputes, and have defense counsel combine and file those pages on the docket.
Possible Third Amended Complaint
The court stated that if Best wishes to amend his complaint, he must file a separate motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The motion must follow Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16 and explain any good cause for the amendment. Best must attach the proposed complaint.
The court repeated instructions from an earlier order that the proposed complaint should clearly state each claim, identify each defendant and the actions allegedly causing the constitutional injury, identify the resulting injury, explain exhaustion of administrative remedies, avoid conclusory allegations, and avoid defendants who are named only because of supervisory or municipal responsibility without supporting facts. The court also stated that Best should not name Doe defendants because claims against them had been dismissed without prejudice to a later motion to add them once their identities are known. The court explained that a third amended complaint would replace the operative complaint and must include all claims Best wishes to pursue.
Disposition
The order terminated Docket Numbers 83, 85, and 88. It did not resolve the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.