Filed: Feb. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Defendant filed a motion for leave to amend its responses to plaintiff's Request for Admissions and Interrogatories (ECF No. 37), and noticed the motion for hearing on February 6, 2019 (ECF No. 41). In violation of Local Rule 251(c), defendant failed to timely file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement and the court ordered the hearing continued to February 13, 2019, and directed the parties to file the req
Summary: ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Defendant filed a motion for leave to amend its responses to plaintiff's Request for Admissions and Interrogatories (ECF No. 37), and noticed the motion for hearing on February 6, 2019 (ECF No. 41). In violation of Local Rule 251(c), defendant failed to timely file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement and the court ordered the hearing continued to February 13, 2019, and directed the parties to file the requ..
More
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant filed a motion for leave to amend its responses to plaintiff's Request for Admissions and Interrogatories (ECF No. 37), and noticed the motion for hearing on February 6, 2019 (ECF No. 41). In violation of Local Rule 251(c), defendant failed to timely file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement and the court ordered the hearing continued to February 13, 2019, and directed the parties to file the required joint statement by February 6, 2019.
The parties have since filed their joint statement. It contains the following statement by plaintiff: "While Starr has arguments opposing Joe's motion and does not agree with the interpretation of the case law as set forth, at this time, Starr is not going to put in papers opposing the motion." ECF No. 43 at 10. Plaintiff provides no other response to any of the arguments raised by defendant. The court construes plaintiff's response as a statement of non-opposition to the motion and the motion is granted.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the joint statement, defendant's request to amend its responses to plaintiff's Request for Admissions, Set One, Numbers 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, and 30, and Interrogatories Numbers 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 is granted and defendant shall serve its amended responses within 14 days of this order.
Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the January 29, 2018 pretrial scheduling order (ECF No. 16) be modified to extend the discovery deadline for the limited purpose of allowing defendant to serve its amended discovery responses.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
