USA v. Estate of Joseph Arleo

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 05/18/18 DENYING without prejudice 52 Motion to Compel as untimely. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-1239-JAM-KJN

v.

ORDER

ESTATE OF JOSEPH ARLEO, et al.,

15
Defendants.

16
17

Presently pending before the court is defendants’ motion to compel discovery responses.

18
19

ECF No. 52.)

20

The operative deadline set by the district judge to complete discovery was January 12,

21

2018. (ECF No. 34.) The term “complete” was defined to mean that “all discovery shall have

22

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

23

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

24

the order has been complied with.” (ECF No. 12 at 4.) Therefore, defendants’ discovery motion

25

is plainly untimely under the district judge’s scheduling order. If defendants wish for a discovery

26

motion to be heard, they must first file an appropriate motion to modify the scheduling order

27

before the district judge.

28

///
1

1
2
3
4

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 52) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 18, 2018

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2