Rodas v. Creditors Specialty Service, Inc.

Filing 72

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/18/14: Plaintiff's 68 MOTION to Show Cause is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as having been rendered moot by defendant's untimely production of post-judgment discovery responses; plaintiff 's 68 Motion to Show Cause is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to plaintiff filing a motion to compel further responses based on defendant's inadequate or incomplete discovery responses, as well as without prejudice to plaintiff filing a motion f or sanctions, brought separately or in conjunction with a motion to compel, based on defendant's failure to timely produce discovery responses pursuant to 67 Order; and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and/or for sanctions may be heard on shortened time and, if the parties cannot agree to a date for the hearing of plaintiff's motion to compel, plaintiff may file an ex parte request for an order shortening time. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VICTOR RODAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-0209 JAM DAD

v.

ORDER

CREDITORS SPECIALTY SERVICE,
INC., et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
This matter came before the undersigned on April 18, 2014, for hearing of plaintiff’s

18
19

motion to show cause. Attorney David M. Marco appeared telephonically on behalf of the

20

plaintiff and attorney Neil Evans appeared telephonically on behalf of the defendant.
Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set

21
22

forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s March 7, 2014 motion to show cause (Dkt. No. 68) is denied without

23
24

prejudice as having been rendered moot by defendant’s untimely production of post-judgment

25

discovery responses;
2. Plaintiff’s March 7, 2014 motion to show cause is denied without prejudice to

26
27

plaintiff filing a motion to compel further responses based on defendant’s inadequate or

28

/////
1

1

incomplete discovery responses, as well as without prejudice to plaintiff filing a motion for

2

sanctions1, brought separately or in conjunction with a motion to compel, based on defendant’s

3

failure to timely produce discovery responses pursuant to the court’s January 13, 2014 order (Dkt.

4

No. 67); and
3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel and/or for sanctions may be heard on shortened

5
6

time and, if the parties cannot agree to a date for the hearing of plaintiff’s motion to compel,

7

plaintiff may file an ex parte request for an order shortening time.

8

Dated: April 18, 2014

9
10
11
12

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.civil\rodas0209.oah.041814

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Any motion for sanctions filed by plaintiff seeking compensation for attorney’s fees should be
supported by a statement identifying the reasonable rate charged by plaintiff’s counsel and
reasonable number of hours expended in plaintiff’s efforts to obtain defendant’s compliance with
the court’s January 13, 2014 order.
2