Andrews v. Pride Industries et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 01/29/16 ORDERING that defendant's 47 Motion for Protective Order is DENIED without prejudice; the 02/03/16 hearing is VACATED. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NAPOLEAN ANDREWS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:14-cv-2154 KJM AC

ORDER

PRIDE INDUSTRIES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Pending before the court is defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 47).

18

Defendant requests an order precluding the taking of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition. The

19

motion was referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c).

20

Defendant filed its motion on January 8, 2016, and noticed it to be heard on February 3,

21

2016. However, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order in this case states that “all oral depositions

22

[shall be] completed by January 15, 2016.” ECF No. 32 at 2. The order further states that

23

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

24

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

25

necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed.” Id.

26
27

The undersigned therefore has no authority to consider defendant’s motion, as it is
scheduled to be heard after January 15, 2016, the last date the undersigned can hear such

28
1

1

motions.1 The scheduling order further provides that “the magistrate judge cannot change the

2

schedule set in this order, even in connection with a discovery matter.” Id. Therefore, if

3

defendant wishes to change the scheduling order so that this motion can be heard, it must get

4

permission to do so from the district judge presiding over this case.

5

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order (ECF No. 47), is DENIED, without

7

prejudice.

8
9

2. The February 3, 2016 hearing on this matter is VACATED.
DATED: January 29, 2016

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

1

The earliest the motion could possibly have been heard was January 20, 2016 (if the motion had
been filed concurrently with a Joint Statement), which is also beyond the last date the
undersigned could hear such a motion. The court also notes that by filing a separate
Memorandum of Law, and separate declarations in support of its motion, defendant was not in
compliance with E.D. Cal. R. 251, which permits only the filing of (1) the Notice, and (2) a Joint
Statement, and no other documents. The Joint Statement (or defendant’s statement, since
defendant asserts that no Joint Statement could be obtained), would include all the documents
which defendant, improperly, filed separately.
2