Cooley v. City of Vallejo et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/27/2015 ORDERING that plaintiff's 45 , 47 discovery-related motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FREDERICK MARCELES COOLEY,

No. 2:14-cv-620 TLN KJN PS

12
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

ORDER
v.
CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel various discovery

19

responses from defendants. (ECF No. 45.) After reviewing the papers in support of the motion, it

20

is readily apparent that the parties have not yet engaged in a good faith effort to informally

21

resolve their discovery issues. Although plaintiff claims that defendants’ discovery responses,

22

served on December 1, 2014, are overdue, he also attaches an e-mail from defendants’ counsel

23

indicating that she is in the middle of preparing for a trial starting on January 26, 2015, but that

24

she had mailed the responses and that plaintiff should receive them soon. Given these

25

circumstances, the court denies plaintiff’s motion without prejudice as premature.

26

In the future, the court expects all parties to be more diligent in timely requesting

27

extensions of time to respond to discovery, if necessary. By the same token, the court will look

28

with disfavor on any party who unreasonably refuses to grant an extension of time in appropriate
1

1

circumstances, such as when an opposing party is ill or in trial. Prior to filing any discovery

2

motion, the parties shall personally meet and confer regarding the disputed discovery issues,

3

either in person or, at a minimum, by telephone. The mere exchange of letters or e-mails alone

4

shall be insufficient.

5

The court also denies without prejudice as premature plaintiff’s corollary motion

6

requesting that his “legal assistant” Frederic Marc Cooley be included as a person with whom

7

plaintiff may share discovery if a protective order is needed. (ECF No. 47.) The court declines to

8

issue an essentially advisory opinion regarding such matters at this juncture.

9

Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s

10

discovery-related motions (ECF Nos. 45, 47) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as

11

premature.

12

Dated: January 27, 2015

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2