Orozco, et al. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.

Filing 82

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/18/2016 DENYING 74 Defendant's motion to compel and the 8/24/2016 hearing thereon is VACATED. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

JUAN OROZCO and JUAN OROZCOBRISENO, individuals, on behalf of
themselves and all persons similarly
situated,

ORDER
Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18

No. 2:14-cv-2113-MCE-EFB

v.
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC., a
corporation, and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive,
Defendants.

19
20

On July 20, 2016, defendant moved to compel plaintiff to provide further responses to its

21

discovery requests. ECF No. 74. The motion is currently noticed for hearing on August 24,

22

2016. ECF No. 75. Local Rule 251(a) provides that the Joint Statement Re Discovery

23

Disagreement must be filed at least seven days before the scheduled hearing date or, in this

24

instance, by August 17, 2016. E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(a). Local Rule 251(a) also provides that the

25

hearing on a discovery motion may be dropped from calendar without prejudice if the Joint

26

Statement re Discovery Disagreement is not timely filed. Id. Although the deadline has passed,

27

the docket reflects that no Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement has been filed in

28

connection with defendant’s motion to compel.
1

1

More significantly, this court has no authority to consider defendant’s discovery motion.

2

On September 1, 2015, the assigned district judge issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order, which

3

provides that all discovery related to class certification shall be completed by January 11, 2016.1

4

ECF No. 21 at 2. The order further provides that “‘completed’ means that all discovery shall

5

have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to

6

discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has

7

been ordered, the order has been obeyed.” Id. The date to complete discovery related to class

8

certification was subsequently extended to June 30, 2016.2 ECF Nos. 37, 45. Defendant,

9

however, did not file his discovery motion until July 20, 2016. Accordingly, this court has no

10
11
12
13
14

authority to consider the discovery motion.
Therefore, defendant’s motion (ECF No. 74) is denied and the August 24, 2016 hearing
thereon is vacated.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 18, 2016.

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

1

The scheduling order bifurcated the discovery process and limited Phase I to facts that
are relevant to whether this action should be certified as a class. ECF No. 21. It further provided
that all other dates and deadlines will be addressed in a supplemental scheduling order that will be
issued following the ruling on the class certification motion. Id. at 3.
2

The discovery deadline was further extended for the limited purpose of allowing
compliance with the court’s April 11, 2016 order requiring defendant to produce further
responses to discovery plaintiff’s requests. ECF No. 57; see ECF No. 52.
2