Ortiz v. Garza

Filing 34

ORDER on 33 Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Motion, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/20/16. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE A. ORTIZ,

Case No. 1:15-cv-01370-DAD-JLT (PC)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
EX-PARTE MOTION

GARZA,

(Doc. 33)
Defendant.

15
16
17

On October 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed document inquiring about documents he submitted to

18

the Court in compliance with the Discovery and Scheduling Order (the D&S Order) (Doc. 30),

19

which were returned to him. (Doc. 33.) It appeared that Plaintiff attempted to comply with the

20

September 20th D&S Order, by submitting his initial disclosures to the Court.1
However, on October 5, 12016, an Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order issued

21
22

which stated in the very first sentence: “The Discovery and Scheduling Order the Court

23

issued on September 20, 2016 is no longer in effect.” (Doc. 32, p. 1 (emphasis in original).)

24

The pivotal difference in the September 20th D&S Order and the October 5th Amended D&S

25

Order was that Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure initial disclosures are no longer

26

required. This relieved both sides of the requirement to produce initial disclosures. Thus, when

27
28

1

Plaintiff was supposed to provide any such disclosures directly to Defendant, and merely submit a copy of the
cover-letter to the Court, or a separate letter reflecting the date he sent his disclosures to Defendant. (Doc. 30, p. 1.)

1

1

Plaintiff’s initial disclosures were received by the Clerk’s Office, they were stamped “Received”

2

and returned to Plaintiff in their entirety. Plaintiff need only comply with the October 15th

3

Amended D&S Order.

4

Plaintiff inquires whether he is “to wait for respondence [sic] responds [sic].” (Doc. 33, p.

5

1.) Plaintiff may engage in discovery as addressed in the Amended D&S Order and should not

6

wait for Defendant to provide initial disclosures, since no longer required.

7
8

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s ex-parte motion, filed on October 18,
2016 (Doc. 33), is GRANTED in as much as this order resolves his confusion.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 20, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2