Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Spies v. El Dorado County, 2:16-cv-02232-WBS GGH. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180625674 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jun. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . On June 19, 2018 plaintiff filed an ex parte Application to Amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order in this action, ECF No. 111, together with a Motion to Compel a deposition and document production pursuant to Federal rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). ECF No. 112. This court issued a Minute Order on June 20, 2018, and directed that defendant's objections the ex parte application, if any, were to be filed by June 21, 2018, after which the court woul
More

ORDER

On June 19, 2018 plaintiff filed an ex parte Application to Amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order in this action, ECF No. 111, together with a Motion to Compel a deposition and document production pursuant to Federal rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). ECF No. 112. This court issued a Minute Order on June 20, 2018, and directed that defendant's objections the ex parte application, if any, were to be filed by June 21, 2018, after which the court would hold a telephonic hearing, if necessary, to resolve the matter. The undersigned encouraged the parties to stipulate the discovery cutoff and deposition issues if at all possible. ECF No. 113.

On June 20, 2018, defendant Marshall Medical Center filed objections to the Ex Parte Application in ECF No. 111; however, it indicated no objection to an amendment of the scheduling order in place in this matter, as it was modified on March 6, 2018, ECF No. 99, to the extent such a modification was required in order to permit plaintiff's ex parte application to be heard on July 19, 2018. Plaintiff has filed no further requests.

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel shall be heard by the court at its regular law and motion calendar on July 19, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.;

2. The parties shall submit a joint statement regarding the discovery dispute on or before July 12, 2018 pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 251(b);

3. The Scheduling Order in this matter is amended to extend the non-expert discovery deadline to the date of the hearing for the sole purpose of ruling upon plaintiff's discovery motion, and may, or may not, be extended further for this sole purpose depending on the outcome of that hearing. Non-expert discovery is otherwise closed.

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