PAJAS v. COUNTY OF MONTEREY, 16-cv-00945-BLF (SVK). (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170307879
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF Re: Dkt. No. 112 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and remarkably similar proposed orders. The ESI requests that are the subject of dispute were served on or about December 23rd, 2016. The parties have had over two months to address these disputes, during which time the Court has made it clear that there would be no further extensions of the close of discovery. (Dkt. Nos. 83, 98.) Therefore, to the ex
Summary: ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF Re: Dkt. No. 112 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and remarkably similar proposed orders. The ESI requests that are the subject of dispute were served on or about December 23rd, 2016. The parties have had over two months to address these disputes, during which time the Court has made it clear that there would be no further extensions of the close of discovery. (Dkt. Nos. 83, 98.) Therefore, to the ext..
More
ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF Re: Dkt. No. 112
SUSAN VAN KEULEN, Magistrate Judge.
The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and remarkably similar proposed orders. The ESI requests that are the subject of dispute were served on or about December 23rd, 2016. The parties have had over two months to address these disputes, during which time the Court has made it clear that there would be no further extensions of the close of discovery. (Dkt. Nos. 83, 98.) Therefore, to the extent the parties' submissions are intended to be a request to formally extend the time for discovery, such request is DENIED.
The Court orders the parties to continue their meet and confer efforts to narrow the scope of the ESI requests, particularly in light of the Court's narrowing of the requests as to other defendants, and to complete the production in a timely manner. The parties may, by mutual agreement, conduct specific depositions after the close of discovery provided there is no adverse impact on the Court-ordered schedule.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
