Wolf, et al., v. Langemeier, et al.,
Filing
88
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/25/2012 DENYING, without prejudice, 80 Motion to Compel, to be re-noticed in the event the issues set forth in the Plaintiffs' 80 Motion to Compel are not resolved by the Court's ruling on the 84 Motion to Sever Improperly Joined Claims and the subsequent meet and confer process; VACATING the Motion Hearing as to 80 Motion to Compel set for 6/6/2012 at 10:00 AM. (Michel, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TAMSCO PROPERTIES, LLC; JKR
LASER INVESTMENT, LLC; SURFER
BEACH, LLC; TO BE DETERMINED, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
12
vs.
13
14
No. CIV S-09-3086 GEB EFB
LORAL LANGEMEIER; LIVE OUT
LOUD, INC.,
15
Defendants.
ORDER
/
16
17
On May 4, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel defendants to serve their initial
18
disclosures in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), and noticed the motion for
19
hearing before the undersigned on June 6, 2012. Dckt. No. 80. Plaintiffs request that defendants
20
be compelled to serve the disclosures despite defendants’ objections thereto, which are based on
21
defendants’ position that plaintiffs improperly joined a variety of claims in this action. Id. at 3,
22
6.
23
////
24
////
25
////
26
////
1
1
Then, on May 21, 2012, defendants filed a motion to sever the claims they contend were
2
improperly joined by plaintiffs. Dckt. No. 84. That motion is scheduled to be heard before the
3
assigned district judge on June 18, 2012.1 Dckt. No. 84.
4
In their opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to compel, defendants state that “the issues
5
framed by plaintiffs’ motion [to compel] are the same as those framed by defendants’ Motion to
6
Sever,” since “Defendants only objected to serving Rule 26(a) disclosures because the case
7
improperly bundled different claims, of different parties, regarding different investments, in
8
different entities.” Dckt. No. 85 at 2. Therefore, defendants request that the motion to compel
9
be continued to the date the motion to sever will be heard. Id.
10
Because it appears that the court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to sever may resolve the
11
issues set forth in plaintiffs’ motion to compel, Dckt. No. 80, that motion is denied without
12
prejudice and the June 6, 2012 hearing thereon is vacated. If the court’s ruling on defendants’
13
motion to sever and the subsequent meet and confer process between the parties (as required by
14
Local Rule 251(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1)) do not resolve the issues set
15
forth in plaintiffs’ motion to compel, plaintiffs may re-notice the motion for hearing in
16
accordance with Local Rule 251.
17
18
SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 25, 2012.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
Also noticed for hearing on June 18, 2012 before the assigned district judge is
defendants’ motion for sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel for filing a complaint on behalf of an
entity that does not exist. Dckt. No. 82.
2
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?