Ageel v. Gonzales et al

Filing 32

ORDER 31 Clarifying Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 01/27/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OMAR AGEEL,

12
13

Case No. 1:09-cv-02076 JLT (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER CLARIFYING DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER

vs.
(Doc. 31)

14
15
16

F. GONZALES, et al.,
Defendants.
/

17

On January 20, 2012, Defendants filed a request for clarification of the Court’s Discovery and

18

Scheduling Order. (Doc. 31) Defendants seek clarification whether the Court’s order applies to all

19

defendants or only as to the single defendant who has filed an answer to the complaint. Id. at 1. They

20

remind the Court that the remaining defendants have appeared but through the filing of a motion to

21

dismiss rather than filing an answer. Id.

22

Defendants are advised that the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order is issued upon the filing

23

of an answer by any defendant. Thus, despite the appearance to the contrary, the Court is aware of the

24

motion to dismiss and will turn its attention to this motion at its very earliest convenience.

25

Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming number of cases filed in this District, the motion will be

26

addressed when the Court’s resources are available to consider it. In the meanwhile, the case must

27

proceed through discovery in order for there to be a timely resolution to the matter.

28
1

1
2

Therefore, the Court clarifies that the Discovery and Scheduling Order, indeed, applies to all
defendants–including those for whom a motion to dismiss has been filed.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: January 27, 2012
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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