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.