Martin v. Sysco Corporation et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further Responses from Defendant, Sysco Central California, Inc. and Motion to Compel Responses from Defendant, Sysco Corporation for failure to comply with Rule 251 #28 , #29 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/16/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN MARTIN,

14
15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
FROM DEFENDANT SYSCO CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA, INC. AND MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES FROM
DEFENDANT SYSCO CORPORATION
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE
251

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:16-cv-00990-DAD-SAB

v.
SYSCO CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

16
(ECF Nos. 28, 29
17
18
19

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Sysco Central California, Inc. to provide

20 further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents and a motion to compel
21 Defendant Sysco Corporation to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and demand for production
22 of documents on November 1, 2017. (ECF No. 28, 29.) On November 3, 2017, an order was
23 filed consolidating the two motions for a hearing on November 22, 2017. (ECF No. 31.) In the
24 November 3, 2017 order, the parties were ordered to comply with Rule 251 of the Local Rules of
25 the Eastern District of California, and to file a joint statement of discovery disagreement on or
26 before November 15, 2017. (Id.) The parties were advised that failure to file a joint statement as
27 required by the order would result in the denial of the motion and the Court will not find good
28 cause to extend the discovery deadlines based on the failure to comply with Rule 251 or the

1

1 November 3, 2017 order. The time to file the joint statement has passed and no joint statement
2 has been filed, nor has Plaintiff otherwise responded to the November 3, 2017 order.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Sysco Central California, Inc. to

3

4 provide further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents and motion to
5 compel Defendant Sysco Corporation to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and demand for
6 production of documents, filed November 1, 2017, are HEREBY DENIED, and the discovery
7 disputes at issue in the motion will not provide good cause cause to extend the discovery
8 deadlines in this action.
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated:

November 16, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2