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.)

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