Batts v. County of Santa Clara

Filing 143

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDERS re 137 Objection filed by Laila Batts (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Laila Batts, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 08-00286 JW ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDERS United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 County of Santa Clara, et al., Defendants. / Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Objections to Portions of Magistrate Judge's Discovery Orders. (hereafter, "Objections," Docket Item No. 137.) Plaintiff objects on various grounds to portions of the following discovery orders: (1) Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Expert Reports,1 (2) Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions,2 and (3) Order Granting in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Document Production and Interrogatory Answers.3 Defendants filed a Response contending that Plaintiff's Objections were untimely filed.4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) provides: "A party may serve and file objections to [a magistrate judge's order regarding a nondispositive matter] within 10 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to." 1 25 2 (Docket Item No. 116.) (Docket Item No. 117.) (Docket Item No. 119.) 26 3 27 28 4 (Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Portions of Magistrate Judge's Discovery Orders, Docket Item No. 142.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Here, Magistrate Judge Lloyd issued all three discovery orders on November 19, 2009. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties had until November 30 to file any objections.5 However, Plaintiff did not file her Objections until December 10, 2009. Thus, on their face, Plaintiff's Objections are untimely. Plaintiff provided no explanation in her brief as to why her filing was late. Accordingly, on or before January 4, 2010, Plaintiff shall file a memorandum showing cause as to why the Court should not overrule her Objections as untimely. Dated: December 18, 2009 JAMES WARE United States District Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Since the actual tenth day after issuance of the discovery orders was a Sunday, November 29, the parties had until the following day to file their objections. 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Aryn Paige Harris aryn.harris@cco.sccgov.org Gregory Joseph Sebastinelli gregory.sebastinelli@cco.co.scl.ca.us Jeremy L. Friedman jlfried@comcast.net Dated: December 18, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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?