Martin v. City of Vallejo

Filing 64

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/19/2015 DENYING 63 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEON JEROME MARTIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:14-cv-0554 DAD PS

ORDER

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s June 10, 2015 motion for

17
18

reconsideration.1 (Dkt. No. 63.) Plaintiff has noticed his motion for reconsideration for hearing

19

on July 10, 2015. The court, however, is not holding a civil law and motion calendar on July 10,

20

2015. Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to contact Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the

21

undersigned magistrate judge, at [phone] to obtain an available hearing date in the event

22

he wishes to re-notice his motion for hearing.
Moreover, in his June 10, 2015 motion for reconsideration plaintiff asserts that he filed his

23
24

motion for reconsideration because the defendants have not complied with the court’s prior

25

/////

26

/////

27
28

1

The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ' 636(c)(1). (Dkt. No. 21.)
1

1

discovery orders by failing to produce “any deadly force responses.”2 (Dkt. No. 63 at 2.) Thus, it

2

does not appear that plaintiff is requesting that the court reconsider a prior order that the court

3

issued but is instead seeking an order requiring defendants’ compliance with a discovery order

4

previously issued by the court. If plaintiff wishes to obtain a ruling from the court on this matter

5

plaintiff shall file a motion, and notice of motion, to compel defendants’ compliance with the

6

court’s December 10, 2014 (Dkt. No. 35) and February 20, 2015 (Dkt. No. 45) discovery orders.

7

In bringing such a motion plaintiff should consult Local Rule 251.3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 10, 2015 motion for

8
9
10

reconsideration, (Dkt. No. 63), is denied.
Dated: June 19, 2015

11
12
13
14
15

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.consent\martin0554.mot.recon.den.ord.docx

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

On December 10, 2014, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel production of responsive
documents, which included discovery related to defendants’ use of deadly force, for the prior ten
years. (Dkt. No. 35.) On February 20, 2015, the court granted in part defendants’ motion for
reconsideration of the December 10, 2014 order, limiting their obligation to produce such
documents to those relating to the prior seven years and for an additional three year period
beyond the last seven years, to only those complaints of excessive use of force and the official
resolution of those complaints. The court did not modify or limit its December 10, 2014
discovery order in any other respect.
3

The court expects all parties to comply with its orders and to engage in a good faith attempt to
resolve discovery disputes prior to the filing of a motion to compel.
2