Allianz Sigorta, S.A. v. Ameritech Industries Inc., et al

Filing 46

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/12/16 ORDERING that Defendant's MOTION to COMPEL 33 , 34 , and 43 is DENIED, without prejudice, as untimely; The MOTION is also DENIED, without prejudice, for the further reason that it fails to comply with Local Rule 251 (a); and The 8/10/16 hearing is VACATED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALLIANZ SIGORTA, A.S.,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-1665 MCE AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

AMERITECH INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Pending before the court is the third amended motion of defendant Ameritech Industries,

18

Inc., which seeks to compel “disassembly of the engine and component testing as necessary,” and

19

certain data. ECF No. 43. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied as untimely

20

and for failure to comply with the court’s Local Rules, and the August 10, 2016 hearing will be

21

vacated.

22

On July 1, 2016, defendant filed its motion to compel. ECF No. 33. The motion was

23

defective in that it failed to notice the motion for hearing, although required to do so by E.D. Cal.

24

R. (“Local Rule”) 251(a). The same day, defendant filed what appears to be the same defective

25

motion. ECF No. 34.

26

On July 6, 2016, defendant amended the motion, and noticed it for hearing on August 3,

27

2016. ECF No. 39 (amended motion). On July 26, 2016, defendant further amended the motion,

28

this time noticing it for hearing on August 17, 2016, nine days after the August 8, 2016 discovery
1

1

cutoff. ECF No. 12 (Pretrial Scheduling Order), 41 (second amended motion). Defendant did not

2

request an extension of the discovery cutoff date. The motion was therefore defective, as it failed

3

to comply with the discovery cutoff set forth in the court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order. ECF

4

No. 12 ¶ IV.

5

On August 10, 2016, two days after discovery cutoff, defendant further amended the

6

motion, and again noticed it for hearing on August 17, 2016. ECF No. 43 (third amended

7

motion). Although it is proper to notice a discovery motion for hearing seven days after its filing

8

(assuming the motion is timely), this is permitted only if the Joint Statement is filed concurrently

9

with the motion. Local Rule 251(a). This motion was therefore defective because it is untimely,

10

having been filed after the close of discovery, and in addition, the Joint Statement was not filed

11

concurrently, but rather was filed the next day (ECF No. 44).

12

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. Defendant’s Motion To Compel (ECF Nos. 33, 34, 43), is DENIED, without prejudice,

14
15
16
17
18

as untimely;
2. The motion is also DENIED, without prejudice, for the further reason that it fails to
comply with Local Rule 251(a); and
3. The August 10, 2016 hearing is VACATED.
DATED: August 12, 2016

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2