Villery v. Jones et al

Filing 98

ORDER on Discovery and Scheduling; ORDER Reopening Discovery for 90 Days and Extending the Dispositive Motions Deadline for 150 Days; and ORDER DENYING 96 Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension AS MOOT signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 9/1/2020. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No. 1:15-cv-01360-DAD-JDP
JARED M. VILLERY,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15
16

ORDER ON DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING

J. JONES, et al.,

ORDER REOPENING DISCOVERY FOR 90
DAYS AND EXTENDING THE DISPOSITIVEMOTIONS DEADLINE FOR 150 DAYS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR AN EXTENSTION AS MOOT

Defendants. ECF No. 96

17
18
19

On Friday, August 24, the court held an informal status conference to discuss several

20

discovery and scheduling issues raised by plaintiff. See ECF No. 92. Plaintiff and counsel for

21

defendants appeared by telephone. While the court has not been presented with a formal motion

22

on discovery issues, the court will, in light of the arguments presented, reopen discovery for 90

23

days from the date of this order and continue the dispositive-motions deadline for an additional 60

24

days thereafter. (Plaintiff may also oppose pending motions during that time.) Thus, the court

25

will also deny plaintiff’s pending motion for an extension—apparently mailed before the

26

telephonic status conference took place—as moot. ECF No. 96.

27
28

The court does not believe that there are any further discovery issues requiring an additional
motion or hearing at this time. At the status conference, the parties appeared to substantially

1

agree that (1) the dispositive-motions deadline could be extended; (2) there are no ripe or

2

probable disagreements over the scope of the protective order; and (3) defendant Yerton may

3

have, as defendants’ counsel represented, properly produced all relevant emails in response to the

4

court’s order on plaintiff’s motion to compel. See ECF No. 81. Defendants’ counsel committed

5

to producing a more detailed breakdown of the email search, and the court hopes that such a

6

breakdown will resolve the issue.

7

Finally, the court notes that the resolution of issues related to the discovery deadline may

8

moot the first and second issues raised in plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. See ECF No. 82.

9

However, unless plaintiff requests to withdraw it, that motion remains properly pending before

10

the district judge.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
Dated:
14

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

September 1, 2020

No. 205.