Gillam et al v. City of Vallejo, et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/15/2016 ORDERING 30 that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is DENIED. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MARVIN GILLAM & PAMALA
GILLAM,
Plaintiffs,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2217-KJM-KJN PS

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

Presently pending before the court is a motion to compel discovery responses, which has

19

been noticed for hearing on February 12, 2016. (ECF No. 30.) However, plaintiffs’ motion fails

20

to comply with the operative scheduling order, which requires discovery motions to be heard no

21

later than January 14, 2016. (See ECF No. 23.) Although plaintiffs are proceeding without

22

counsel,1 and the court thus liberally construes their pleadings and filings, they are required to

23

comply with the Local Rules, court orders, and case deadlines.

24

////

25

1

26
27
28

To the extent that plaintiffs rely on their non-attorney “legal assistant,” Frederick Marc Cooley,
to keep track of case deadlines and to advise them regarding compliance with the court’s orders,
plaintiffs do so at their own peril. As the court has cautioned plaintiffs on numerous occasions,
Mr. Cooley is not an attorney and is not allowed to represent them in federal court, and plaintiffs
themselves are responsible for their compliance with the Local Rules, court orders, and case
deadlines. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 14, 23.)
1

1

Moreover, good cause does not exist to modify the scheduling order. The discovery

2

responses at issue were served on November 12, 2015, which provided plaintiffs with an adequate

3

opportunity to bring a timely motion to compel in accordance with the court’s scheduling order.

4

Instead, plaintiffs first contacted defendants’ counsel to schedule a meet-and-confer conference

5

on December 24, 2015, which, in addition to being Christmas Eve, was the last day on which a

6

notice of motion to compel could have been filed to ensure a timely hearing on January 14, 2016.

7

(See ECF No. 29; see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 251.)

8

In sum, the discovery motion hearing deadline has now passed, and no further discovery

9

motions will be entertained from any party. The parties are encouraged to focus their efforts on

10
11

preparing for any dispositive motions and/or trial.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to compel (ECF No. 30) is

12

DENIED.

13

Dated: January 15, 2016

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2