Kilgore v. Mandeville et al
Filing
110
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 03/01/12 ordering that the deadline is extended for defense counsel to serve, on plaintiff's counsel, each defendant's declaration, as ordered by the court on 01/06/12; defense counsel shall, on or before 03/16/12 file a declaration demonstrating compliance with this requirement, or an explanation why this deadline cannot reasonably be met. (See order for further details)(Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
IVAN KILGORE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:07-cv-2485 GEB KJN P
vs.
RICHARD MANDEVILLE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
ORDER
/
17
Counsel for defendants has filed a “Notice of Partial Compliance With the Court’s
18
Order Filed January 6, 2012.” (Dkt. No. 108.) Defendants’ counsel states therein that defendants
19
have produced to plaintiff or his counsel (counsel was appointed in September 2011), all medical
20
records in defense counsel’s possession, and a copy of plaintiff’s deposition transcript. In
21
addition, defense counsel requested and obtained, from the Litigation Office at California State
22
Prison- Sacramento, copies of plaintiff’s relevant medical records and administrative grievances,
23
which defense counsel forwarded to plaintiff’s counsel on February 22, 2012. Defense counsel
24
states, however, that she requires additional time to obtain the declarations of each defendant, as
25
ordered by the court.
26
////
1
For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline is extended
2
for defense counsel to serve, on plaintiff’s counsel, each defendant’s declaration, as ordered by
3
the court on January 6, 2012; defense counsel shall, on or before March 16, 2012, file a
4
declaration demonstrating compliance with this requirement, or an explanation why this deadline
5
cannot reasonably be met.
6
The parties are reminded that each counsel shall, on or before March 30, 2012, file
7
a further status report, that states: (1) whether any further discovery is required in this case; (2)
8
whether any party intends to file a nondispositive pretrial motion, e.g. the reinstatement of
9
previously dismissed defendants (but see Dkt. No. 107 at 2 n.2 (noting high threshold for such
10
amendment)); (3) suggested dates for discovery cut-off; and (4) suggested deadlines for filing
11
dispositive motions.
12
13
SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 1, 2012
14
15
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
kilg2485.eot.disc.cmplnc.
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?