Lopez v. Krieg, et al.

Filing 87

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/15/15 ordering that plaintiff's motion filed 11/12/15 86 is denied without prejudice. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD LOPEZ,

12

No. 2:13-cv-1176 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. KRIEG, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

On November 12, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion setting forth the medical reasons for his

18

late response to defendants’ production request, and requesting that this court consider the

19

attendance of two prospective witnesses on plaintiff’s behalf at “any hearing (pre-trial) or trial.”

20

See ECF No. 86 at 2.

21

Because defendants have not filed a discovery motion challenging the timing of plaintiff’s

22

production response, this matter is not before the court. Plaintiff’s request concerning potential

23

witnesses is premature. The identity of the two witnesses plaintiff references in his “Exhibit 5”

24

remain unclear – the witnesses are not identified by name in plaintiff’s motion, see ECF No. 86 at

25

2, and plaintiff’s exhibits do not include a clearly-indicated Exhibit 5. Moreover, as set forth in

26

the Discovery and Scheduling Order issued in this case, any motion to obtain the attendance of

27

witnesses must be made in tandem with a pretrial statement. See ECF No. 83 at 2-3. This case

28

still remains in the discovery stage.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion filed November 12,

2

2015, ECF No. 86, is denied without prejudice.

3

DATED: December 15, 2015

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