Davis v. Woodford et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/4/12 DENYING 47 Motion to Prevent Discovery. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

11

Plaintiff,
vs.

12
13

No. CIV S-05-1898 JAM EFB P

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

16
17

U.S.C. § 1983. In his December 23, 2011 motion, he argues defendants are violating this court’s

18

discovery and scheduling order by noticing his deposition for January 9, 2012, after the

19

December 2, 2011 deadline found in the scheduling order. Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion.

20

The court’s discovery and scheduling order requires that written discovery be served by

21

December 2, 2011, and that all other discovery, including depositions, which are governed by

22

Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be completed by February 3, 2012. See Dckt.

23

No. 39 at 4. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to prevent defendants from deposing him on January

24

9, 2012 lacks merit, and will be denied.

25

////

26

////
1

1

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s December 23, 2011 motion (Dckt. No. 47)

2

is denied. Counsel for defendants shall provide a copy of this order to plaintiff at the deposition

3

on January 9, 2012.

4

Dated: January 4, 2012.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

\

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2