Lear v. Biter et al

Filing 110

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Ex Parte Application to modify Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines in Scheduling Order 108 ; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's Motion 103 signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 6/24/2020. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

FRESNO DIVISION

11
12

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

Case No. 1:15-CV-01903-DAD-JDP
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION TO MODIFY
DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION
DEADLINES IN SCHEDULING ORDER

JOHNATHAN AKANNO, ET AL.,

16

ECF No. 108
Defendants.

17

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

18

ECF No. 103

19
20
21

On April 10, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion seeking clarification, to strike discovery, and a

22

pre-trial conference. ECF No. 103. Because plaintiff represented in his motion that defendants

23

had not responded to discovery requests or otherwise conducted discovery, the court ordered a

24

response. ECF No. 105. In response, defendants acknowledge that discovery has not been

25

completed in this case, ECF No. 107, and seek to reopen discovery according to proposed new

26

deadlines in an ex parte application, ECF No. 108. As it appears that both parties seek discovery,

27

and for good cause shown, defendants’ ex parte application is granted.

28
1

1

Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 103, is granted in part. Plaintiff will have the benefit of a new

2

discovery deadline and the court will clarify where plaintiff should send his discovery requests.

3

However, a pre-trial conference would be premature at this time, and thus the court declines to set

4

one at this juncture. Plaintiff’s discovery requests of defendants Akanno and Palomino may be

5

sent to their attorneys at the following address:

6

8

Susan Coleman
Martin Kosla
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 90071-2953

9

Should the parties have any discovery-related disputes, they must attempt to resolve those

7

10

disputes among themselves before filing a motion with the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1)

11

(requiring the parties to meet and confer regarding discovery disputes before bringing them to the

12

court). Failure to do so will result in denial of any discovery-related motion.

13

Accordingly,

14

1. Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 103, is granted in part and denied in part, as stated herein.

15

2. Defendants’ ex parte application, ECF No. 108, is granted.

16

3. The discovery and scheduling order, ECF No. 99, is further modified as follows:

17

a. Fact Discovery Cut-off: 9/15/20

18

b. Initial Expert Disclosures: 9/30/20

19

c. Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: 10/30/20

20

d. Expert Discovery Cut-off: 11/30/20

21

e. Dispositive Motion Deadline: 12/31/20

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

June 24, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6

No. 204.

7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3