Reese, Jr. v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/21/2015 GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 32 Motion for Leave to Exceed the Ten Deposition Limit; DENYING 33 Motion to Compel without prejudice to renewal. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT I. REESE, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-0559 JAM DAD

v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On March 20, 2015, this matter came before the undersigned for hearing of plaintiff’s

18

motion for leave to exceed the deposition limit and motion to compel. Attorney Stewart Katz

19

appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and attorneys John Whitefleet and Taylor Rhoan appeared on

20

behalf of the defendants.
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 motion for leave to exceed the ten deposition limit (Dkt. No. 32) is granted

23
24

in part and denied in part as stated on the record; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 33) is denied without prejudice to renewal.

25
26

Dated: March 21, 2015

27
28

DAD:6

1

1

Ddad1\orders.civil\reese0559.oah.032015.docx

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2