Spilsbury v. Target Corporation et al

Filing 117

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 95 99 103 112 115 the parties' respective discovery motions. The Court refers to Judge Ware 101 102 the parties' respective administrative motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 2/28/2011. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2011)

Spilsbury v. Target Corporation et al

Doc. 117

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

** E-filed February 28, 2011 **

NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION THOMAS SPILSBURY, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORP., et al., [Re: Docket Nos. 95, 99, 103, 112, 115] Defendants. ____________________________________/ Over the past two months, this case has been haphazardly pursued. Essential facts have changed, and motions have been made and withdrawn. Now, the parties have deluged this Court with discovery motions. On February 8, 2011, Defendants' filed a motion to compel the release of Plaintiff's Facebook information. Docket No. 95. And from February 9 to February 15, Plaintiff filed three motions to compel and a motion to quash. Docket Nos. 99, 103, 112, 115. However, per Judge Ware's scheduling order -- which he recently refused to modify -- discovery closed on January 21, 2011 (Docket No. 36), and under this District's civil local rules, discovery motions may not be filed more than seven days after the discovery cutoff. See Civ. L.R. 37-3. Knowing this, both parties filed administrative motions for leave to file these discovery motions (although they filed the underlying motions anyway). No. C09-05955 JW (HRL) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PARTIES' RESPECTIVE DISCOVERY MOTIONS

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For the Northern District of California

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

It is Judge Ware, and not this Court, who decides whether to extend the discovery cutoff and whether to allow parties to conduct discovery after it. Thus, this Court refers the parties' administrative motions to Judge Ware. See Docket Nos. 101, 102. Further, since the parties' discovery motions were filed more than seven days after the current January 21 discovery cutoff, this Court DENIES them without prejudice. See Docket Nos. 95, 99, 103, 112, 115. Should Judge Ware extend the discovery cutoff or allow the parties to move to compel, the parties may refile their motions and notice them for hearing before this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 28, 2011 HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For the Northern District of California

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

C09-05955 JW (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: Juliet MacMillin Lompa Timothy Dennis McMahon [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Please see General Order 45 Section IX C.2 and D; Notice has NOT been electronically mailed to: Colette Stone Stone & Sidran A Professional Coporation 2125 Ygnacio Valley Road Suite 101 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 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 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For the Northern District of California

3