Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

KILGORE v. MANDEVILLE, 2:07-cv-2485 GEB KJN P. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120301f62 Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2012
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Counsel for defendants has filed a "Notice of Partial Compliance With the Court's Order Filed January 6, 2012." (Dkt. No. 108.) Defendants' counsel states therein that defendants have produced to plaintiff or his counsel (counsel was appointed in September 2011), all medical records in defense counsel's possession, and a copy of plaintiff's deposition transcript. In addition, defense counsel requested and obtained, from the Litigation Office at Califo
More

ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Counsel for defendants has filed a "Notice of Partial Compliance With the Court's Order Filed January 6, 2012." (Dkt. No. 108.) Defendants' counsel states therein that defendants have produced to plaintiff or his counsel (counsel was appointed in September 2011), all medical records in defense counsel's possession, and a copy of plaintiff's deposition transcript. In addition, defense counsel requested and obtained, from the Litigation Office at California State Prison-Sacramento, copies of plaintiff's relevant medical records and administrative grievances, which defense counsel forwarded to plaintiff's counsel on February 22, 2012. Defense counsel states, however, that she requires additional time to obtain the declarations of each defendant, as ordered by the court.

For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline is extended for defense counsel to serve, on plaintiff's counsel, each defendant's declaration, as ordered by the court on January 6, 2012; defense counsel shall, on or before March 16, 2012, file a declaration demonstrating compliance with this requirement, or an explanation why this deadline cannot reasonably be met.

The parties are reminded that each counsel shall, on or before March 30, 2012, file a further status report, that states: (1) whether any further discovery is required in this case; (2) whether any party intends to file a nondispositive pretrial motion, e.g. the reinstatement of previously dismissed defendants (but see Dkt. No. 107 at 2 n.2 (noting high threshold for such amendment)); (3) suggested dates for discovery cut-off; and (4) suggested deadlines for filing dispositive motions.

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