Hawecker et al v. Sorensen

Filing 135

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs Hawecker's and Broussard's Request for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and Motion to Compel, Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/7/2012. Plaintiffs shall file their motion to amend the scheduling order concurrently with their discovery motion no later than 5/11/2012. Opposition to the motion shall be filed no later than 5/21/2012.(Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARRIE HAWECKER, et al.,

12
13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.
RAWLAND LEON SORENSON,

15

Defendant.

16
17

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,
v.
RAWLAND LEON SORENSON,
Defendant.

22
23

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00085 - AWI - JLT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS HAWECKER’S
AND BROUSSARD’S REQUEST FOR AN
ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION
TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER AND
MOTION TO COMPEL
(Doc. 133, 134)

On May 4, 2012, the individual Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the scheduling order to allow

24

14 additional days to file a motion to compel Defendant to provide the records and responses to

25

discovery. (Doc. 133) This discovery was the subject of an earlier motion to compel, which was

26

granted in part on April 16, 2012. (Doc. 107) Plaintiffs report that Defendant has failed to comply

27

with the Court’s order. (Doc. 133)

28
1

Notably, in the original scheduling order, the Court ordered that non-dispositive motions,

1
2

including discovery motions, were to be filed no later than March 16, 2012. (Doc. 95 at 7) Though the

3

scheduling order was amended twice (Docs. 100, 114), the Court was never asked to amend the order

4

as it related to the filing of non-dispositive motions and the date for doing so has never been extended.

5

In any event, good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS:

6

1.

Plaintiffs’ request for an order shortening time is GRANTED;

7

2.

Plaintiffs’ are relieved of their obligation to participate in a pre-filing conference with

8

the Court before filing their motion to amend the scheduling order and their discovery motion;
3.

9

Plaintiffs SHALL file their motion to amend the scheduling order1 concurrently with

10

their discovery motion no later than May 11, 20122. Plaintiff SHALL serve the motion(s) to

11

Defendant via overnight mail, so that it is delivered no later than May 11, 2012;

12

4.

Opposition to the motion(s), SHALL be filed no later than May 21, 2012;

13

5.

No reply SHALL be filed;

14

6.

The motions SHALL be heard on May 25, 2012 at 8:30 a.m., at the United States

15

Bankruptcy Courtroom located at 1300 18th Street, Bakersfield, California. Counsel are encouraged

16

to appear by telephone. Should they choose to do so, they SHALL notify the Court of this intention

17

via an e-mail to [e-mail], no later than May 18, 2012.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated:

May 7, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

24
25
26
1

27
28

The Court will first consider whether Plaintiff’s have demonstrated good cause to amend the scheduling order to allow a
non-dispositive motion to be considered out-of-tome. Only if this showing is made, will the Court consider the discovery
motion.
2
Counsel is reminded that pretrial, nondispositive motions are to be heard by Judge Thurston rather than Judge Ishii.

2