Martin v. County of San Joaquin

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/24/2015 DENYING 41 Amended Motion to Compel without prejudice to re-filing if discovery in this action is re-opened by court order; VACATING the Motion Hearing on 41 Amended Motion to Compel set for 12/9/2015 at 10:00 AM. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARILYN MARTIN,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-1632 MCE CKD (TEMP)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN,

15

Defendant.

16
17

On November 11, 2015, defendant filed an amended notice of motion to compel a medical

18

examination and set the matter for hearing before the undersigned on December 9, 2015, (Dkt.

19

No. 41), pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1), which provides that all discovery motions in civil

20

matters shall be heard by the assigned Magistrate Judge.

21

However, on November 19, 2014, the assigned District Judge issued a Pretrial Scheduling

22

Order providing that “[a]ll discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be completed

23

by August 13, 2015.” (Dkt. No. 8 at 2) (emphasis in original). The Pretrial Scheduling Order

24

also explains that

25
26
27
28

In this context, “completed” means that all discovery shall have
been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any
disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by
appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been
ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel
discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge’s calendar in
accordance with the local rules of this Court.
1

1

(Id.) On March 5, 2015, the assigned District Judge issued a minute order amending the

2

November 19, 2014 Pretrial Scheduling Order to provide that “all discovery shall be completed

3

by 11/13/2015” and that “disclosure of Expert Witnesses to be tendered no later than 1/13/2016.”

4

(Dkt. No. 15.)

5

Under these circumstances, defendant’s deadline for conducting discovery in this action

6

has passed and defendant’s November 11, 2015 amended motion to compel noticed for hearing

7

before the undersigned is untimely.1 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, defendant’s

8

amended motion to compel (Dkt. No. 41) is denied and dropped from the court’s December 9,

9

2015 calendar. Denial of defendant’s motion to compel is without prejudice to re-filing if

10

discovery in this action is re-opened by court order.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 24, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

BVD/martin1632.disc.ist.ord

1

Defendant’s motion argues that “there is no authority to suggest that a motion pursuant to Rule
35 must be heard before the close of fact discovery . . . .” (Dkt. No. 41 at 8.) Even assuming,
arguendo, that this assertion is true, it does not change the fact that the time permitted for the
undersigned to hear discovery disputes has passed.
2