ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the court is plaintiff's December 1, 2014 motion to reschedule depositions. ECF No. 80. Because this action is afflicted with obvious discovery disagreements and scheduling problems, the court will summarize the recent procedural history before addressing plaintiff's request.
On October 8, 2014, this court held a status (pretrial scheduling) conference. ECF No. 71. Plaintiff appeared in pro per and counsel Douglas Roeca appeared on behalf of defendants. ECF No. 71. On October 9, 2014, this court issued a scheduling order that set, inter alia, a discovery deadline of February 25, 2015. ECF No. 72 at 2. The court also scheduled a settlement conference before the undersigned for April 30, 2015.
In addition to the scheduling order, the court issued a separate order specifically addressing the scheduling of depositions in this action. ECF No. 73. The court's October 9, 2014 order notes that plaintiff represented he would not be available until November 15, 2014 and defendants would be unavailable after November 20, 2014 and through mid-April of 2015.
During the first week of November, plaintiff sent repeated email messages to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk seeking court intervention in ongoing disputes regarding production of documents. On November 7, 2014, the court issued an order directing the parties to cease communicating with the Courtroom Deputy Clerk regarding the substance of their discovery dispute. The court directed plaintiff to the policy of the undersigned regarding telephonic discovery conferences, and to the Local Rules governing motions to compel. The court reiterated that "[a]ll previously-ordered deadlines remain in place." ECF No. 74.
On November 12, 2014, plaintiff filed a "request for postponement of court ordered depositions and motion to compel production of requested discovery materials." ECF No. 75. On November 13, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion for failure to comply with this court's prior orders and the Local Rules. ECF No. 76. The court pointed out that the deposition schedule may only be amended by stipulation of the parties and repeated the requirements of the Local Rules for filing discovery motions.
On November 14, 2014, following the parties' failure to file a written waiver of any claim of disqualification of the undersigned conducting a settlement conference by the deadline articulated in the court's October 9, 2014 order, the undersigned issued an order to show cause. ECF No. 77. The court directed the parties to each file, within fourteen days, a written waiver of any claim of disqualification of the undersigned conducting a settlement conference; in the alternative, either party could file a request that a settlement conference be scheduled before another magistrate judge.
On November 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for production of documents, arguing that he "has made repeated attempts to obtain [certain] documents. . . ." ECF No. 78. The motion made no mention of the depositions that were to have been completed no later than November 20. Plaintiff's motion failed to comply with Local Rule 251. On December 1, 2014, the court issued a minute order vacating plaintiff's motion without prejudice to renewal in compliance with the Local Rules. ECF No. 79.
On December 1, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion styled as a motion to reschedule depositions. ECF No. 80. Plaintiff avers that he returned to this country from Ireland on an unspecified date in order to attend the depositions, but was thereafter unable to travel from New Jersey to California for the depositions due to medical problems that prohibited him from traveling until November 19.
Despite plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with the Local Rules, it is clear to the court that the current discovery schedule is no longer feasible. Accordingly, the court construes plaintiff's motion as a motion to extend the discovery deadline and will grant it. However, plaintiff does not provide sufficient information for the court to properly address scheduling. The parties will therefore be ordered to file separate status reports within twenty-one days from the date of this order. The status reports must comply with Local Rule 240 and include information that will enable the court to set a new discovery deadline and otherwise amend the scheduling order.
In light of the impending amended discovery schedule, the court will vacate the April 30, 2015 settlement conference. The parties are cautioned that the court is mindful of their failure on two separate occasions to comply with the court's orders regarding a waiver of any claim of disqualification.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's December 1, 2014 motion to reschedule depositions, ECF No. 80, is construed as a motion to amend the discovery scheduling order and is GRANTED;
2. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, the parties shall file separate status reports in accordance with this order; and
3. The April 30, 2015 settlement conference scheduled before the undersigned is VACATED.