Warwick v. University of the Pacific et al

Filing 129

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman denying 100 Motion to Compel (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC, et al., Defendant(s). JOANNE WARWICK, Plaintiff(s), ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C08-3904 CW (BZ) FOURTH DISCOVERY ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff's motion requesting leave to file a motion to compel. After reviewing the parties'

papers and finding no need for a hearing, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's request to file a motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion is not timely. Civil Local Rule 26-2

states that a "`discovery cut-off' is the date by which all responses to written discovery are due and by which all depositions must be concluded." Further "no motions to compel

fact discovery may be filed more than 7 days after the fact discovery cut-off . . . ." case was December 31, 2009. Id. The discovery cut-off in this

I extended the deadline to

complete depositions by Order dated November 25, 2010 for the 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

limited purpose of permitting the parties to avoid taking certain specified discovery over the holidays. Even assuming

I extended the cut-off to January 31, 2010 by my November 25, 2010 Order, plaintiff's motion is still untimely. Plaintiff

brought this discovery dispute to the court's attention on February 9, 2010, which is more than 7 days after January 31, 2010. Further, plaintiff has been dilatory in raising this discovery dispute. Plaintiff does not deny that she knew or

should have known that the email responses provided by the CDCR may have been deficient as far back as June or July of 2009. Counsel did not even raise this issue until a meeting Plaintiff has provided

with defense counsel in December 2009.

no explanation for her lack of diligence other than an interpretation of the rules that allows a party to wait and file all motions to compel after discovery is closed. Plaintiff is however correct that the CDCR has a duty to supplement under Rule 26. In the exercise of the Court's

inherent power to manage its docket, IT IS ORDERED that by MARCH 17, 2010 the CDCR shall examine the hard drives of each of the individuals whose emails are in dispute to search for locally saved copies of relevant emails and to supplement its production if necessary. Dated: March 5, 2010 Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge
G:\BZALL\-REFS\WARWICK V. UNIV. OF PACIFIC\DISC ORD 4 FINAL VERSION.wpd

2