Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ROBINSON v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, 2:12-cv-2783 MCE GGH PS. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140418b02 Visitors: 19
Filed: Apr. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 16, 2014
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge. On April 11, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and production of documents. (ECF No. 67.) Much of the motion is untimely in seeking to compel discovery beyond the April 24, 2014 cutoff. 1 Therefore, plaintiff's motion will be denied except for discovery relating to plaintiff's previous motion to compel, filed January 28, 2014. (ECF No. 35.) The two matters which will be considered are plaintiff's request for emai
More

ORDER

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.

On April 11, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and production of documents. (ECF No. 67.) Much of the motion is untimely in seeking to compel discovery beyond the April 24, 2014 cutoff.1 Therefore, plaintiff's motion will be denied except for discovery relating to plaintiff's previous motion to compel, filed January 28, 2014. (ECF No. 35.)

The two matters which will be considered are plaintiff's request for emails dated between November 14, 2007 and July 1, 2011, in which his name is referenced (document request number 1), and the report completed by Spectrum Consulting in 2007/2008 (document request number 3). For the time being, defendant will not be required to respond to plaintiff's motion as it concerns emails in which he was mentioned. Defendant will, however, be required to submit the draft2 Spectrum Consulting Report for in camera review.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, filed April 11, 2014, (ECF No. 67), is vacated from the law and motion calendar for May 8, 2014.

2. Within seven days of this order, defendant shall submit the Spectrum Consulting Report in its possession directly to this court's chambers (Suite 13-220) for in camera review.

FootNotes


1. The scheduling order as modified on March 19, 2014 required discovery motions to be heard by April 10, 2014. (ECF No. 49.)
2. Defendant has previously represented that the final version is not in its possession.
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