Thomsen, et al., v. Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, et al.,

Filing 52

ORDER denying without prejudice 49 Motion for Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/15/12: The March 21, 2012 hearing thereon is vacated. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MARK THOMSEN,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13
14

No. CIV S-09-1108 KJM EFB

SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
FIRE DISTRICT; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,
Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16
On February 28, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to

17
18

interrogatories and production of documents associated with defendant’s Rule 26 disclosures.

19

Dckt. No. 49. The motion was noticed for hearing on March 21, 2012. Id.
Local Rule 251(a) requires the parties to a discovery dispute to file a Joint Statement Re

20
21

Discovery Disagreement at least seven days before the scheduled hearing date, or in this

22

instance, by March 14, 2012. E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(a). The rule further provides that the hearing

23

on the discovery motion may be dropped from calendar without prejudice if the Joint Statement

24

re Discovery Disagreement is not timely filed. Id.

25

////

26

////
1

1

Although the deadline has passed, the docket reveals that no Joint Statement re Discovery

2

Disagreement has been filed in connection with plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to

3

interrogatories and production of documents associated with defendant’s Rule 26 disclosures.

4

Therefore, that motion, Dckt. No. 49, is denied without prejudice and the March 21, 2012

5

hearing thereon is vacated.

6
7

SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 15, 2012.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2