Douglas v. Sacramento County et al

Filing 37

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/20/2010 ORDERING that because the evidence plaintiff challenges is not being considered by the court at this time, plaintiff's 35 motion is premature and is therefore denied without prejudice. If the evidence at issue is offered by defendants in support of a motion for summary judgment or is listed as evidence to be offered at trial, plaintiff may raise his objections to the evidence at the appropriate time.(Duong, D)

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 IRWIN DOUGLAS, vs. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. CIV 09-1038 FCD EFB PS

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., Defendants. ___________________________/

ORDER

This action is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On April 12, 2010, plaintiff filed a "declaration and motion to throw out and disregard defendants' supplemental disclosure of evidence." Dckt. No. 35. Because the evidence plaintiff challenges is not being considered by the court at this time, plaintiff's motion is premature and is therefore denied without prejudice. If the evidence at issue is offered by defendants in support of a motion for summary judgment or is listed as evidence to be offered at trial, plaintiff may raise his objections to the evidence at the appropriate time. DATED: May 20, 2010.