Elawyers Elawyers

OROZCO v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED, 2:12-cv-2585 KJM CKD. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130828892 Visitors: 18
Filed: Aug. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2013
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has filed an ex parte application to advance the hearing date of plaintiff's motion to compel from September 18, 2013 to September 4, 2013. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, which was dropped from calendar as untimely under the court's scheduling order. On August 19, 2013, the District Judge amended the scheduling order, setting October 20, 2013 as the new date for the discovery cut-off. That same day, plaintiff filed a renewed motion t
More

ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff has filed an ex parte application to advance the hearing date of plaintiff's motion to compel from September 18, 2013 to September 4, 2013. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, which was dropped from calendar as untimely under the court's scheduling order. On August 19, 2013, the District Judge amended the scheduling order, setting October 20, 2013 as the new date for the discovery cut-off. That same day, plaintiff filed a renewed motion to compel. Plaintiff now seeks to advance hearing on the motion, contending that the September 18, 2013 hearing will not allow sufficient time for follow up discovery.

The pending motion to compel was filed August 19, 2013. Because of the notice requirements under the Local Rules, the earliest date on which the motion could be heard was September 11, 2013. At the time the motion was filed, that date was unavailable on the court's law and motion calendar. Because that date is now available, the court will advance the hearing to September 11, 2013.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Hearing on plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 60) is reset for September 11, 2013.

2. The parties shall file the joint statement no later than September 3, 2013.

FootNotes


1. The court declines to advance the hearing to September 4, 2013 inasmuch as setting the hearing on that date would not allow sufficient time for the parties to meet and confer and timely submit the joint discovery statement required under Local Rule 251.
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