Torbov v. Cenlar Agency, Inc

Filing 63

ORDER DENYING 55 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 56 MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DISCLOSURE OR DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/8/2014. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2014)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

TSVETAL TORBOV,
Plaintiff,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

v.
CENLAR AGENCY, INC., MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,
INC., TAYLOR, BAN & WHITAKER CORP,
AND DOES 1-25,

Case No. 5:14-cv-00130-BLF
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; AND DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR AN
ORDER COMPELLING DISCLOSURE OR
DISCOVERY
[Re: ECF 55, 56]

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Tsvetan Torbov has filed a Motion for Reconsideration (ECF 55) of this Court’s

16

Order Denying Motion to Enlarge Time issued May 27, 2014 (ECF 51); and a Motion for an Order

17

Compelling Disclosure or Discovery (ECF 56).

18

The Court’s Civil Local Rules require a party to obtain leave of the Court before filing a

19

motion for reconsideration of any interlocutory order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). The Court construes

20

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

21

The motion is DENIED. The order as to which Plaintiff wishes to seek reconsideration denied

22

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of the discovery cut-off on the basis that no discovery cut-off has

23

been set in this case. (See Order Denying Motion to Enlarge Time, ECF 51). As the Court

24

reaffirmed at the July 3, 2014 hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, there is no discovery cut-

25

off in this case that the Court could extend or enlarge.

26

The Court’s Civil Local Rules also require that motions seeking substantive relief, such as

27

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery, be “filed, served and noticed

28

in writing on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge for hearing not less than 35 days after filing
5:14-cv-00130-BLF
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECON AND DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE/DISCOVERY

1

of the motion.” Civ. L.R. 7-2. All discovery matters in this case have been referred to Magistrate

2

Judge Howard R. Lloyd. (See Case Management Order, ECF 46) Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order

3

Compelling Disclosure or Discovery was not noticed on Judge Lloyd’s motion calendar.

4

Accordingly, it is DENIED without prejudice to the filing of a renewed motion that complies with

5

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Civil Local Rules and is properly noticed for

6

hearing before Magistrate Judge Lloyd.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: July 8, 2014

__________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
5:14-cv-00130-BLF
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECON AND DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE/DISCOVERY