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