O'Neal v. Johnson et al

Filing 92

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/20/2016 DENYING 86 Motion to Compel. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SEAN O’NEAL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2374 KJN PS (TEMP)

v.

ORDER

AUGUST JOHNSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On April 25, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to compel and set the motion for hearing before

17
18

the undersigned on May 26, 2016.1 (Dkt. No. 86.) However, on February 29, 2016, the

19

undersigned issued a scheduling order which provided that all discovery in this action must be

20

“completed” by May 26, 2016. (Dkt. No. 80 at 8.) That order explained that, in the context of

21

discovery:

22

‘completed’ . . . means that all discovery shall have been conducted
so that . . . any disputes relative to discovery shall have been
resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has
been ordered, the order has been complied with.

23
24
25

(Id.)

26

/////

27
28

1

The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ' 636(c)(1). (Dkt. No. 16.)
1

1

In this regard, plaintiff’s motion is noticed for hearing on the same day as the deadline for

2

the completion of discovery. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court granted plaintiff’s motion,

3

there would be insufficient time remaining to allow for defendant’s compliance with the court’s

4

order. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 86) is denied as untimely and will be

5

dropped from the court’s May 26, 2016 calendar.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 20, 2016

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BVD/o’neal2374.disc.untimely.ord

27
28
2