Sears v. County of Butte, et al.,

Filing 57

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 07/18/18 DENYING 53 Motion to Compel as untimely. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL SEARS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-CV-0589-MCE-CMK

vs.

ORDER

COUNTY OF BUTTE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

/

17

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action for

18

damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and 42

19

U.S.C. § 1981. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 53) for issuance of an order

20

to show cause regarding contempt directed to non-party Oroville Police Department for failure to

21

comply with a subpoena. A hearing was held before the undersigned in Redding, California, on

22

July 18, 2018. Grant A. Winter, Esq., appeared for plaintiff. William E. Camy, Esq., appeared

23

for defendant. Anita Bamshad, Esq., appeared for non-party Oroville Police Department. After

24

considering arguments, the matter was submitted.

25

///

26

///
1

1

Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Pursuant to the District Judge’s April 2, 2018,

2

order, the original August 12, 2015, scheduling order was modified to allow for the completion

3

of non-expert discovery by June 15, 2018. See Doc. 14. While plaintiff’s counsel argued at the

4

hearing that more time is needed for discovery in order to honor the spirit of the April 2, 2018,

5

extension of the discovery deadline, no party has sought any further extensions. Under the

6

provisions of the District Judge’s original scheduling order, “. . . ‘completed’ means that all

7

discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes

8

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

9

discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed.” (emphasis added). Because

10

plaintiff’s motion was filed on June 15, 2018, with a hearing noticed for July 18, 2018, it is

11

untimely.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 53) for

13

issuance of an order to show cause regarding contempt directed to non-party Oroville Police

14

Department is denied as untimely.

15
16
17
18

DATED: July 18, 2018
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2