Wake Forest Acquisitions, L.P., et al., v. Vanderbilt Commercial Lending, Inc. et al
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.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARY SHAFFER, et al.,
No. 2:15-cv-2167 KJM DB
LENDING, INC., et al.,
On August 4, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking sanctions against defendant Gregory
Cook. (ECF No. 52.) On August 7, 2017, plaintiffs noticed the motion for hearing before the
undersigned on August 25, 2017, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 54.) Therein,
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
closed. (Pls.’ Mot. Sanct. (ECF No. 52-1) at 2.) In this regard, fact based discovery was to be
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
It is unclear to the undersigned why plaintiffs waited four weeks to file their motion for
appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been
ordered, the order has been obeyed.
(ECF No. 30 at 2.) The undersigned “cannot change the schedule set in this order, even in
connection with a discovery matter.”2 (Id.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The August 25, 2017 hearing of plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is vacated; and
2. Plaintiffs’ August 4, 2017 motion for sanctions (ECF No. 52) is denied without
prejudice to renewal.3
Dated: August 21, 2017
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
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.
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?