Watts v. Allstate Indemnity Company et al

Filing 125

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 09/09/09 DENYING 94 Plaintiff's ex parte application; and VACATING without prejudice 99 Motion to Compel; and DENYING 107 Plaintiff's ex parte application; and VACATING without prejudice 114 Motion to Compel. (Streeter, J)

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 Presently before the court are plaintiff's ex parte applications for order shortening time to hear his motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one (dkt. #s 94, 95), and requests for production, set two (dkt. #s 107, 108). Plaintiff requests a hearing and resolution of these motions prior to the September 15, 2009 discovery cutoff, claiming that defendants have not fully responded to discovery requests propounded on July 2, 2009, and have not responded to plaintiff's meet and confer efforts. Yesterday, this court denied defendants' application for order shortening time in regard to discovery involving potentially voluminous discovery. Now plaintiff is taking his turn to ask this court to drop everything to resolve a hopelessly tardy, voluminous discovery dispute. Such potentially voluminous discovery as that at issue here may not be resolved on such short \\\\\ \\\\\ 1 ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Defendants. / ORDER vs. ROBERT WATTS, Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S- 08-1877 LKK GGH IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

time. In fact, there is no realistic hearing date available prior to September 15, 2009.1 The parties' lack of prior planning will not become this court's emergency. This court's denial of plaintiff's applications is without prejudice to a properly filed Joint Statement re Discovery Dispute, E.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-251, if the district judge grants plaintiffs' motion to modify the scheduling order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's ex parte application to shorten time, filed September 8, 2009, (docket # 94), is denied. 2. Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, filed September 8, 2009, (docket # 99), is vacated without prejudice. 3. Plaintiff's ex parte application to shorten time, filed September 8, 2009, (docket # 107), is denied. 4. Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents, set two, filed September 8, 2009, (docket # 114), is vacated without prejudice. DATED: September 9, 2009 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows GREGORY G. HOLLOWS U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
G G H : 0 7 6 : W a tt s 1 8 7 7 . a p p .w p d

This morning plaintiffs filed a "separate statement regarding discovery dispute," apparently pertaining to the motion to compel requests for production; however, it is not in conformity with E.D. Local Rule 37-251 and defendants' actions as described by plaintiffs, do not amount to a total failure. 2

1