Johnson v. Hua

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/10/15 DENYING 11 Motion to Compel and the hearing thereon is VACATED. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-1147-JAM-EFB

v.

ORDER

CUONG V. HUA,

15

Defendant.

16
17

On June 5, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant to respond to plaintiff’s

18

Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff noticed the

19

motion for hearing on July 8, 2015. Id.
On July 31, 2014, the court issued a pretrial scheduling order, which provides that all

20
21

discovery shall be completed by June 29, 2015. ECF No. 9 at 2. The order states that

22

“‘completed’ means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been

23

taken and any disputes related to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if

24

necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with.” Id. The

25

order further provides that all “[m]otions to compel discovery must be noticed on the

26

undersigned’s calendar in accordance with Local Rules and must be heard not later than May 27,

27

2015.” Id. at 2-3.

28

/////
1

1

Thus, plaintiff’s motion to compel is untimely. Furthermore, it does not appear from the

2

motion that there is good cause for amending the pretrial order. See Rule 16(b)(4) (“A schedule

3

may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”); Johnson v. Mammoth

4

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel

5

(ECF No. 11) is denied and the hearing thereon is vacated.

6

So Ordered

7

DATED: June 10, 2015.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2