National Fire Insurance Company Of Hartford et al v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/12/2012 ORDERING that the 1/25/2012 hearing on the discovery motions is VACATED. The parties' 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 discovery motions are DENIED without prejudice. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, et al. 11 Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-11-0786 KJM CKD 12 vs. 13 14 WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. 15 16 17 18 ORDER Defendants. / Pending before the court are defendants’ motions to compel the depositions of the 19 persons most qualified to testify on behalf of plaintiffs as well as the production of documents. 20 (Dkt. No. 26, 27.) In turn, plaintiffs have filed motions for protective orders related to these 21 depositions and document productions. (Dkt. Nos. 28, 30.) All four motions were noticed for 22 hearing before the undersigned on January 25, 2012. 23 After the motions were filed, the parties were ordered to file their joint 24 statement(s) pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 251 fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing date on 25 January 11, 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 29, 31.) The parties failed to file a joint statement pursuant to E.D. 26 Cal. L.R. 251(c), or any separate statements pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(d), by the required 1 1 2 deadline. Additionally, the court notes that the deadline to complete all discovery in this 3 matter is January 25, 2012. (See Dkt. No. 19 at 2.) The district judge’s pretrial scheduling order 4 provides that in the context of discovery, the term “completed” means that “all discovery shall 5 have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to 6 discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has 7 been ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on 8 the magistrate judge’s calendar in accordance with the local rules of this Court.” (See Pretrial 9 Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 19, at 2.) 10 Therefore, the parties’ motions are untimely under the current discovery deadline, 11 because any depositions and document productions, whether limited by an appropriate protective 12 order or not, would have to take place after the discovery deadline. Accordingly, to obtain the 13 relief requested, the parties must first file a motion before the district judge to modify the pretrial 14 scheduling order and extend the deadline to complete discovery. As such, the instant motions 15 should be denied without prejudice. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The January 25, 2012 hearing on the discovery motions is vacated; and 18 2. The parties’ discovery motions (dkt. nos. 26, 27, 28, and 30) are denied 19 20 without prejudice. Dated: January 12, 2012 21 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 CKD/5 National Fire.786.mtc.po.vac.wpd 26 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?