Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

JONES v. McELROY, 2:13-cv-1375 GEB CKD P. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20151026631 Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2015
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is defendants' motion for a thirty-day extension of time to complete plaintiff's deposition. (ECF Nos. 80 & 81.) Defendants request an additional four hours, in excess of the one-day, seven-hour limit, to complete the deposition under Rule 30(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ( Id. ) Plaintiff has filed an opposition (ECF No. 83), and attorney Janine K. Jeffery, who represents three of the defendants, has filed a de
More

ORDER

Before the court is defendants' motion for a thirty-day extension of time to complete plaintiff's deposition. (ECF Nos. 80 & 81.) Defendants request an additional four hours, in excess of the one-day, seven-hour limit, to complete the deposition under Rule 30(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed an opposition (ECF No. 83), and attorney Janine K. Jeffery, who represents three of the defendants, has filed a declaration in reply (ECF No. 87).

Good cause appearing, defendants Lobato, Sharp, Jochim, Perez, Sullivan, McElroy, Dingfelder, and Lish's motion for extension of time (ECF Nos. 80 & 81) is granted. Defendants are granted additional time, up to and including thirty days from the date of this order, to complete plaintiff's deposition. Defendants are also allowed an additional four hours, in addition to the seven-hour limit under the Federal Rules, to examine plaintiff during his deposition.

In light of this and other pending discovery issues, the dispositive motion deadline of October 30, 2015 (ECF No. 46) is hereby VACATED, to be reset at a later date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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