Hendow, et al v. Univ of Phoenix

Filing 220

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/1/09 ORDERING that the parties' pending Motions to Compel 213 , 214 will be heard on Thursday, 4/9/2009 at 10:00. Telephonic appearance is permitted pursuant to the conditions of which counsel are aware. No further documents shall be filed by either party in connection with these motions absent further order of the court. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 v. UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, Defendant. / On March 27, 2009, relators filed a motion to compel further discovery, noticing the motion for hearing on April 3, 2009 and indicating that a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement would be submitted no later than three days prior to the hearing date as required under Local Rule 37-251. On that same day, defendant filed a motion to compel further discovery, noticing their motion for the same day, April 3, 2009, and making the same representation regarding the filing of a Joint Statement. The court first learned of the motions when, on March 30, 2009, both Joint Statements and several supporting declarations were filed. The documents filed by the parties on March 30, 2009, in connection with the two motions to compel consist of over 1100 pages. ///// 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. MARY HENDOW and JULIE ALBERTSON, Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-03-0457 GEB DAD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
DAD:

For the most part the parties' filings comply with the requirements of Local Rule 37-2511 and in particular with the provision for a hearing on the next regularly scheduled calendar when a Joint Statement is filed with a Notice of Motion and Motion. See Local Rule 37-251(a). Nonetheless, given the voluminous nature of the documents filed in connection with these discovery disputes, the other matters already on the court's civil law and motion calendar and the undersigned's duties as the criminal general duty judge during April, the court is unable to accommodate the parties on April 3, 2009, as requested. The court also notes that pursuant to the amended scheduling order issued on October 17, 2008, by the assigned district judge, all nonexpert discovery in this action is to be completed by May 29, 2009. Accordingly, the parties' pending motions to compel will be heard on Thursday, April 9, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. Telephonic appearance is permitted pursuant to the conditions of which counsel are aware. No further documents shall be filed by either party in connection with these motions absent further order of the court. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 1, 2009.

Ddad1/orders.civil/hendow0457.o.040109

The court has previously cautioned counsel in this action regarding the filing of voluminous declarations in connection with discovery motions when those declaration essentially set forth matters that are to be contained in the joint statement. See Local Rule 37-251(c). 2

1