Yeager v. Aviat Aircraft, Inc. et al

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/20/11 DENYING without prejudice 73 Motion for Reimbursement of Expert Fees. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK”
YEAGER (RET.),

11
Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-10-2055 JAM EFB

12
vs.
13
14

AVIAT AIRCRAFT, INC., and STUART
HORN,

15

Defendants.

ORDER
/

16
17

On October 19, 2011, defendants filed a motion for reimbursement of a $9500.00 expert

18

fee paid by defendants to plaintiff’s expert Jon Albert for his deposition. Dckt. No. 73. The

19

motion was originally noticed for hearing before the assigned district judge, but the district judge

20

issued a minute order on October 20, 2011 directing defendants to re-notice the motion before

21

the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1), which provides that discovery motions are to

22

be heard by the assigned magistrate judge. Dckt. No. 74 (“Defendant’s Motion for

23

Reimbursement of Expert Fees has been mis-calendared before Judge Mendez, and as a

24

consequence will not be calendared for hearing nor be heard by Judge Mendez on December 7,

25

2011. The motion, under Local Rule 302(c)(1), should be noticed for hearing before the Hon.

26

Edmund F. Brennan, U.S. Magistrate Judge.”). Defendants then re-noticed the motion for a
1

1
2

hearing before the undersigned on November 30, 2011. Dckt. No. 75.
However, the discovery deadline in this case was August 31, 2011. See Oct. 7, 2010

3

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, Dckt. No. 24. That deadline has now passed and discovery is

4

closed. As set forth in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, the discovery deadline is the date

5

on which all discovery is to be “completed,” which “means that all discovery shall have been

6

conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall

7

have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the

8

order has been complied with.” Id. at 3. Although defendants contend that “the parties agreed to

9

extend [the discovery completion] date” and that defendants therefore noticed Albert’s

10

deposition for September 27, 2011, Dckt. No. 73-1 at 3, that agreement by itself does not modify

11

the district judge’s order setting the discovery cut-off date of August 31, 2011. The undersigned

12

has no authority to consider a discovery motion after the close of discovery.1 While defendants

13

may file either a stipulation and proposed order or a motion to modify the scheduling order, the

14

stipulation must be approved or the motion must be heard and decided by the district judge.

15

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for reimbursement of expert fees, Dckt. No. 73, is denied

16

without prejudice.

17
18

SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 20, 2011.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

When parties agree to conduct discovery beyond the discovery completion deadline set
by the court, they do so with the risk that the court will not decide any disputes relating to that
discovery.
2