Forte v. Hughes et al

Filing 101

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application 99 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/16/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 EUGENE FORTE, 6 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION (Doc. 99) Plaintiff, 7 8 1:13-cv-1980-LJO-MJS v. TIMOTHY SCHWARTZ, 9 Defendant. 10 11 12 On February 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Snyder denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for 13 the Court to issue numerous subpoenas, finding that Plaintiff’s requested subpoenas did not comply with 14 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) or 45(d). Doc. 78 at 3. Plaintiff did not contest or appeal that 15 order. As discussed at the December 15, 2016 pre-trial conference, Magistrate Judge Snyder explained 16 in detail the deficiencies with Plaintiff’s subpoena request and how he could cure them at a March 2, 17 2016 status conference. Plaintiff made no attempt to do so, despite Magistrate Judge Snyder’s invitation 18 with clear, specific, and detailed instructions. 19 Instead, the Plaintiff waited until six weeks before the scheduled jury trial, at the pre-trial 20 conference, where he repeatedly explained his position, that he disagreed with Magistrate Judge 21 Snyder’s denial of his request for subpoenas. The Court explained to Plaintiff that, because he did not 22 appeal that denial to this Court or to the Ninth Circuit, the Court would not re-visit Magistrate Judge 23 Snyder’s order, issued ten months ago. The Court further explained that, to the extent Plaintiff was 24 moving to reopen discovery, his request was denied as untimely and without the good cause needed for 25 relief.. 1 1 Plaintiff now applies ex parte for an order directing the Clerk of Court “to immediately provide 2 subpoenas” to [him] when requested by him. Doc. 99 at 1. For the reasons thoroughly explained at the 3 pre-trial conference, on the record, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application. 4 Also as explained at the pre-trial conference, if Plaintiff requests subpoenas ordering witnesses’ 5 attendance at trial, his request should say so. Presently, it appears clear that the subpoenas being 6 requested by the Plaintiff are for discovery purposes to prepare for trial. This was specifically what the 7 Plaintiff was told yesterday at the Pretrial Conference that he was not entitled to do. Request DENIED. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ December 16, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?