Espinoza et al v. C & C Security Patrol, Inc. et al

Filing 81

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying as moot 77 defendants' motion for order shortening time; denying 79 defendants' Motion to Compel; and denying 80 defendants' Motion for Sanctions. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION LEONARDO ESPINOZA and SERGIO ROQUE, v. Plaintiffs, No. C08-01522 JW (HRL) ORDER (1) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [Docket Nos. 77, 79, 80] / *E-FILED 01-12-2010*

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

C&C SECURITY PATROL, INC. HERMENEGILDO COUGH, MARCEL LOPEZ, GILBERT MARTINEZ, Defendants.

Defendants move for an order compelling plaintiffs to produce documents and to pay attorney's fees and expenses defendants incurred in connection with these motions. Defendants also request that the matter be heard on shortened time. Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(2) contemplates that Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 requests for production may be served in conjunction with deposition notices, discovery in this matter closed months ago on October 19, 2009. Reportedly, the presiding judge will hold a pretrial conference on February 22, 2010, and trial is set to begin on March 10, 2010. Nothing in defendants' prior (belated) motion to compel plaintiffs' depositions suggested that defendants intended to propound an additional round of document requests at this late stage of the litigation. (See Docket Nos. 63, 75). Nor did this court's December 14, 2009 authorize defendants to do so. This court takes a dim view of defendants' service of untimely document requests when no such discovery was

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

permitted. Accordingly, defendants' motion to compel and motion for sanctions are denied. Their motion for an order shortening time is denied as moot. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 12, 2010 HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5:08-cv-01522-JW Notice has been electronically mailed to: Adam Wang [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Mark A. Hagopian [e-mail] Sejal Thakkar [e-mail] Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

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 3