Lear v. Biter et al
Filing
112
ORDER DENYING 111 Motion Ex Parte Motion Regarding Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 07/14/2020. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,
12
13
v.
Case No. 1:15-cv-01903-DAD-JDP
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE MOTION REGARDING
DISCOVERY
14
ECF No. 111
15
16
JOHNATHAN AKANNO, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiff seeks to avoid further discovery in this case and moves to vacate the court’s most
19
recent order modifying the discovery schedule. ECF No. 111. Plaintiff does not wish to conduct
20
discovery. See id. While the court is sympathetic to the fact that this litigation has been ongoing
21
for some time, the parties are being afforded the opportunity to conduct further discovery and file
22
dispositive motions before this case goes to trial. Further, plaintiff—as the party who filed this
23
action—cannot avoid the consequences of litigation. Thus, plaintiff’s ex parte motion is denied
24
for failure to provide good cause. ECF No. 111.
25
26
27
28
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
Dated:
4
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
July 14, 2020
No. 204.
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?