Filed: May 25, 2012
Latest Update: May 25, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOHN F. MOULDS, Magistrate Judge. On May 14, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration by this court of its order filed May 1, 2012, granting defendants' motion for protective order. Plaintiff has not shown grounds which warrant reconsideration of that order. Cf. L.R. 230(j). For that reason, plaintiff's motion will be denied. On the same day, plaintiff filed a motion for issuance of a discovery and scheduling order in this action. The court's May 1, 2012 order provided in re
Summary: ORDER JOHN F. MOULDS, Magistrate Judge. On May 14, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration by this court of its order filed May 1, 2012, granting defendants' motion for protective order. Plaintiff has not shown grounds which warrant reconsideration of that order. Cf. L.R. 230(j). For that reason, plaintiff's motion will be denied. On the same day, plaintiff filed a motion for issuance of a discovery and scheduling order in this action. The court's May 1, 2012 order provided in rel..
More
ORDER
JOHN F. MOULDS, Magistrate Judge.
On May 14, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration by this court of its order filed May 1, 2012, granting defendants' motion for protective order. Plaintiff has not shown grounds which warrant reconsideration of that order. Cf. L.R. 230(j). For that reason, plaintiff's motion will be denied.
On the same day, plaintiff filed a motion for issuance of a discovery and scheduling order in this action. The court's May 1, 2012 order provided in relevant part that discovery would not be opened in this case unless and until the pleadings are settled. Plaintiff still has not filed an amended complaint pursuant to the district court's March 30, 2012 order.1 Plaintiff's motion will be denied.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's May 14, 2012 motion for reconsideration of this court's May 1, 2012 order is denied; and
2. Plaintiff's May 14, 2012 motion for issuance of a discovery and scheduling order is denied.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff's amended complaint was due on or before April 19, 2012, and he has neither filed a proposed amended complaint nor sought an extension of time to so. In view of the fact that this matter is set for settlement conference on June 12, 2012, this court has deferred for now recommending dismissal of the action based on plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint.
