Garces v. Degadeo et al

Filing 70

ORDER DENYING 2 Motion; ORDER Removing 51 Reply from Court's Pending Motion List; ORDER DENYING 63 Motion to Compel; ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 68 Motion for Extension of Time and Defendants' Responses are Due on or Before January 22, 2009; ORDER Setting Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing for 2/6/2009 at 10:30 AM Arizona Time (9:30 AM PST) before District Judge James A Teilborg, signed by District Judge James A Teilborg on 1/20/2009. (Sondheim, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. Degadeo, Officer Bott, Smith, Defendants. Luis M. Garces, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:06-cv-1038-JAT (PC) ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Fresno)

Pending before the Court are several motions. First, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed August 9, 2006 was effectively denied without prejudice on September 18, 2006 when the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis. This motion is denied on that basis. Next, the docket reflects that a "motion" is still pending at docket #51, but the Order at docket #54 struck docket #51 from the record. Therefore, the "motion" should no longer be pending on this Court's motion report, and is ordered terminated on that basis. Finally, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery on September 15, 2008 (Doc. #63). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion and Defendants' response and is unable to ascertain what specific documents or responses Plaintiff is seeking to compel. On that basis, the Court denies the motion. The Court also denies Defendants' request for attorney's fees and the posting of a bond found in their response.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Discovery closes in this case on March 26, 2009. Given the age of this case, the Court expects the parties to complete discovery by this date. As indicated above, the Court is unclear whether any outstanding discovery disputes remain between the parties. To facilitate the prompt resolution of this case, the Court will set a discovery dispute hearing. The parties should come to this hearing prepared to discuss any and all outstanding discovery disputes, and Plaintiff shall be prepared to advise the Court, with specificity, what discovery he is still seeking, by reference to specific discovery requests, the dates on which those requests were made, and documents sought by those requests. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Doc. #2 is denied for the reasons stated above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Doc. #51 shall be removed from this Court's pending motion list for the reasons stated above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel, Doc. #63, is denied for the reasons stated above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's second set of interrogatories, Doc. #68, is granted to the extent that Defendants' responses are due on or before January 22, 2009. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a telephonic discovery dispute hearing on Friday, February 6, 2009 at 10:30 a.m., Arizona time (which is 9:30 a.m. in California). Defendants shall arrange for Plaintiff to be on a conference call with them at the time they call the Court for the hearing. The parties shall call the Court at 602-322-7560 on their conference call at the time set for the hearing. DATED this 20th day of January, 2009.

-2-