Kaur et al v. City of Lodi et al
Filing
129
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/25/2015 REFERRING 110 , 111 , 112 and 121 Motions seeking sanctions to the Assigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rules. The remaining portions of each motion is DENIED under the ripeness doctrine. (Donati, J)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
10
SUKHWINDER KAUR, individually
and as the successor in
interest for the Decedent
PARMINDER SINGH SHERGILL;
KULBINDER KAUR SOHOTA;
SARABJIT SINGH SHERGILL,
v.
12
14
15
16
17
18
CITY OF LODI; CITY OF LODI
POLICE DEPARTMENT; MARK
HELMS, in his individual
capacity as the Chief of
Police for the City of Lodi;
SCOTT BRATTON, in his
individual capacity as a City
of Lodi Police Officer; ADAM
LOCKIE, in his individual
capacity as a City of Lodi
Police Officer,
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
11
13
No. 2:14-cv-00828-GEB-AC
On November 2, 2015, and November 16, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed motions each of which was noticed for hearing before the
undersigned district judge and seeks sanctions under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 37(c)(1). (ECF Nos. 110, 111, 112,
121.)
However,
Local
Rule
302(c)(1)
prescribes
that
“[a]ll
discovery motions, including Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 motions” are
referred to the assigned magistrate judge. E.D. Cal. Local Rule
302(c)(1)
(emphasis
added).
Therefore,
28
1
this
portion
of
each
1
motion
2
undersigned district judge and instead should be re-noticed for
3
hearing before the assigned magistrate judge. The remainder of
4
each motion has not been shown ripe for judicial decision in
5
light of Plaintiffs’ position in their Rule 37(c)(1) motion that
6
expert
7
witnesses
8
failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)
9
(governing the disclosure of expert testimony). Therefore, the
10
remaining portion of each motion is denied under the ripeness
11
doctrine.
12
Dated:
should
not
reports
should
have
should
be
been
be
noticed
stricken
excluded,
or
because
November 25, 2015
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
for
hearing
precluded,
of
before
and
Defendants’
the
expert
alleged
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?