Connecticut Electric, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Breaker, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/6/2012 DENYING, without prejudice, 15 Motion to Compel Discovery; VACATING the Motion Hearing as to 15 Motion to Compel Discovery set for 12/12/2012. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CONNECTICUT ELECTRIC, INC.,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. 2:12-cv-1533-KJM-EFB

PACIFIC COAST BREAKER, INC.;
PC SYSTEMS, INC.,

14
Defendants.

ORDER
/

15
16

On October 19, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to respond to

17

plaintiff’s discovery requests. Dckt. No. 15. The motion was originally noticed for hearing on

18

November 14, 2012; however, on November 8, 2012, pursuant to the parties’ request, the hearing

19

was continued to December 12, 2012. Dckt. No. 17.
Local Rule 251(a) provides that the Joint Statement Re Discovery Disagreement must be

20
21

filed at least seven days before the scheduled hearing date. E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(a). Local Rule

22

251(a) also provides that the hearing on a discovery motion may be dropped from calendar

23

without prejudice if the Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement is not timely filed. Id.
Although the deadline has passed, the docket reveals that no Joint Statement re Discovery

24
25

Disagreement has been filed in connection with plaintiff’s motion to compel. Therefore, that

26

////
1

1

motion, Dckt. No. 15, is denied without prejudice and the December 12, 2012 hearing thereon is

2

vacated.

3
4

SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 6, 2012.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2