Filed: Nov. 13, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 13, 2014
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. Following the court's October 8, 2014 status (pretrial scheduling) conference, the undersigned ordered the depositions of the parties to take place between November 15 and November 20, 2014, inclusive. ECF No. 73. The order clearly stated that "[t]he parties may amend this deposition schedule only by stipulation filed with the court." Id. (emphasis added). On November 12, 2014, plaintiff filed a "request for postponement of court ordered depositi
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. Following the court's October 8, 2014 status (pretrial scheduling) conference, the undersigned ordered the depositions of the parties to take place between November 15 and November 20, 2014, inclusive. ECF No. 73. The order clearly stated that "[t]he parties may amend this deposition schedule only by stipulation filed with the court." Id. (emphasis added). On November 12, 2014, plaintiff filed a "request for postponement of court ordered depositio..
More
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Following the court's October 8, 2014 status (pretrial scheduling) conference, the undersigned ordered the depositions of the parties to take place between November 15 and November 20, 2014, inclusive. ECF No. 73. The order clearly stated that "[t]he parties may amend this deposition schedule only by stipulation filed with the court." Id. (emphasis added).
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.
With regard to the scheduled depositions, plaintiff seeks postponement of the depositions until discovery has been exchanged between the parties. ECF No. 75 at 6. Because plaintiff failed to obtain defendants' consent and submit the request by stipulation, the request is DENIED.
Plaintiff also moves the court to compel defendants' responses to discovery requests. As explained in the court's November 7, 2014 order,
Motions to compel discovery are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) and Local Rule 251. The moving party must file a motion that functions to notify the court of the dispute and place the matter on calendar, but that does not include Points and Authorities (argument).
ECF No. 74 at 1-2; See L.R. 251(c). Local Rule 251(a) provides that "a hearing of a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37 . . . may be had by the filing and service of a notice of motion and motion scheduling the hearing date on the appropriate calendar at least twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing and service." Plaintiff's motion to compel is defective for two reasons. First, plaintiff's motion includes argument in support of the motion to compel, in violation of Local Rule 251(c). Second, plaintiff fails to include a notice setting a hearing date at least twenty-one days from the date of filing and service, in violation of Local Rule 251(a). For these reasons, plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff is cautioned that any future motions to compel must be in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules.
In light of the time-sensitive nature of this order, plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant without electronic filing privileges, plaintiff's present location outside of the country, and plaintiff's regular use of email, counsel for defendant is directed to forward a copy of this order forthwith to plaintiff at the email address (or addresses) from which plaintiff has communicated in the past. Further, plaintiff is directed to Local Rule 133(b)(3), which provides for a pro se party to seek permission to utilize the court's electronic filing system.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
