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.)

Download PDF
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

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?