Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Peterson v. Farrow, 2:15-cv-0801 JAM DB. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180406a75
Filed: Apr. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . On March 30, 2018, plaintiffs filed three motions for discovery and noticed those motions for hearing before the undersigned on April 20, 2018. (ECF Nos. 83-85.) On March 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed another motion for discovery and noticed that motion for hearing before the undersigned on April 27, 2018. (ECF No. 86.) However, on January 9, 2017, the assigned District Judge issued a Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order. (ECF No. 78.) That order prov
More

ORDER

On March 30, 2018, plaintiffs filed three motions for discovery and noticed those motions for hearing before the undersigned on April 20, 2018. (ECF Nos. 83-85.) On March 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed another motion for discovery and noticed that motion for hearing before the undersigned on April 27, 2018. (ECF No. 86.)

However, on January 9, 2017, the assigned District Judge issued a Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order. (ECF No. 78.) That order provides that "[a]ll discovery shall be completed by May 1, 2018." (Id. at 4.) The order explains that:

. . . "completed" means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with.

(Id.) In this regard, there is not sufficient time remaining in the discovery period for the undersigned to hear four discovery motions, issue orders on those motions, and for those orders to be complied with prior to the close of discovery on May 1, 2018.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' March 30, 2018, and March 31, 2018 motions for discovery (ECF Nos. 83, 84, 85, 86) are denied without prejudice as untimely and the April 20, 2018, and April 27, 2017 hearings are vacated.

FootNotes


1. In the undersigned's experience, it is unusual to hear so many discovery disputes in one action, let alone so close in time, and so close to the end of a discovery period that spanned more than a year. Plaintiffs previously filed a motion to compel on February 23, 2018, and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on March 16, 2018. (ECF No. 80.) Plaintiffs were aware of Local Rule 251 at the time of filing. (Id. at 2.) After plaintiffs were notified of their failure to timely comply with Local Rule 251, plaintiffs amended the motion to compel on March 12, 2018, by noticing the motion for hearing on March 30, 2018. (ECF No. 81.) The hearing of that motion was vacated because plaintiffs again failed to comply with Local Rule 251. (ECF No. 82.)
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer