Gregoire v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/6/2014 DENYING plaintiff's 35 Third Amended 34 to Compel further responses to Discovery Requests and DROPPING it from Court's 10/10/2014. Denial of plaintiff's Motion to Compel is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing only if Discovery is further extended by court Order. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID W. GREGOIRE, 12 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-1857 TLN DAD Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a third amended notice of motion to compel 18 discovery. (Dkt. No. 35.) The hearing of that motion was noticed by plaintiff’s counsel for 19 October 10, 2014. The parties, however, did not file a Joint Statement re Discovery 20 Disagreement at least seven days prior to the scheduled hearing date, in violation of Local Rule 21 251(a). Local Rule 251(a) also provides that the hearing of plaintiff’s motion may be dropped 22 from calendar due to the failure to file a timely joint statement. 23 On January 29, 2014, the assigned District Judge issued a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) 24 Order requiring that all discovery be “completed” by May 15, 2014. (Dkt. No. 16 at 2.) In the 25 context of discovery, “‘completed’ means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all 26 depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by 27 appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been 28 obeyed.” (Id.) 1 1 On April 10, 2014, the assigned District Judge entered an order extending the discovery 2 deadline to October 1, 2014, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. (Dkt. No. 24.) On October 2, 3 2014, the assigned District Judge granted the parties’ stipulation to allow defendants 21 days to 4 complete the deposition of plaintiff’s expert, and to file a motion to compel with respect to that 5 deposition if necessary. (Dkt. No. 38.) That order, however, did not extend the October 1, 2014 6 discovery deadline in any other manner. In fact, that order explicitly stated that there were “no 7 other changes to the scheduling order.” (Dkt. No. 38.) 8 Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s deadline for conducting discovery in this action has 9 passed and plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 35) is untimely. Accordingly, for the reasons 10 stated above, plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 35) is denied and dropped from the court’s 11 October 10, 2014 calendar. Denial of plaintiff’s motion to compel is without prejudice to re- 12 filing only if discovery in this action is further extended by court order. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 6, 2014 15 16 17 DAD:6 Ddad1\orders.civil\gregoirie1857.disc.untimely.ord.docx 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?