Wake Forest Acquisitions, L.P., et al., v. Vanderbilt Commercial Lending, Inc. et al

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 8/21/2017 DENYING 52 Motion for Sanctions without prejudice to renewal; VACATING the hearing on said motion set for 8/25/2017. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY SHAFFER, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-2167 KJM DB v. ORDER VANDERBILT COMMERCIAL LENDING, INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17 On August 4, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking sanctions against defendant Gregory 18 19 Cook. (ECF No. 52.) On August 7, 2017, plaintiffs noticed the motion for hearing before the 20 undersigned on August 25, 2017, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 54.) Therein, 21 plaintiffs assert that defendant Cook failed to appear at his July 6, 2017 deposition.1 However, as plaintiffs’ motion acknowledges, fact based discovery in this action has 22 23 closed. (Pls.’ Mot. Sanct. (ECF No. 52-1) at 2.) In this regard, fact based discovery was to be 24 completed by July 21, 2017. (ECF No. 47 at 1.) In this context, “completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by 25 26 27 28 1 It is unclear to the undersigned why plaintiffs waited four weeks to file their motion for sanctions. 1 1 appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. 2 3 (ECF No. 30 at 2.) The undersigned “cannot change the schedule set in this order, even in 4 connection with a discovery matter.”2 (Id.) 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The August 25, 2017 hearing of plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is vacated; and 7 2. Plaintiffs’ August 4, 2017 motion for sanctions (ECF No. 52) is denied without 8 prejudice to renewal.3 9 Dated: August 21, 2017 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 DLB:6 DB\orders\orders.civil\shaffer2167.ut.disc.ord 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Even in those instances in which the undersigned is allowed to modify the discovery deadline, the undersigned can only do so if the modification does not alter the other deadlines in the action. Here, dispositive motions must be heard by September 22, 2017, and, therefore, must be noticed for hearing 28 days prior pursuant to Local Rule 230. (ECF No. 30 at 4.) In this regard, an extension of the discovery deadline in this action would require a continuation of the dispositive motion deadline, a change the undersigned cannot make. Moreover, plaintiffs arguably are not seeking a modification of the discovery deadline but a re-opening of a discovery period that has already closed. 3 In this regard, plaintiffs may re-notice their motion for hearing before the undersigned in the event that discovery in this action is re-opened. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?