Roberts v. Cate et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying 57 Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/29/11. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TONY ROBERTS, 11 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-2624 KJN P vs. 13 MATTHEW CATE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel. On June 22, 2011, the parties were 17 reminded that discovery closed on June 8, 2011, but that once the court issued a ruling on 18 defendants’ motion for protective order, plaintiff could renew his motion to extend the discovery 19 deadline. On June 27, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery responses, which 20 plaintiff signed on June 20, 2011, prior to the issuance of the June 22, 2011 order. Plaintiff’s 21 motion to compel is untimely and will be denied without prejudice to its renewal should the court 22 subsequently grant an extension of the discovery deadline. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 23 plaintiff’s June 27, 2011 motion to compel (dkt. no. 57) is denied without prejudice. 24 DATED: June 29, 2011 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 robe2624.mtc

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?