Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

White v. City of Vallejo, 2:14-cv-1603 JAM KJN PS (TEMP). (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160523676 Visitors: 10
Filed: May 20, 2016
Latest Update: May 20, 2016
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , District Judge . This action came before the court on May 19, 2016, for hearing of defendants' motion to compel production against plaintiff Christopher White. Attorney Kelly Trujillo appeared telephonically behalf of the defendants. There was no appearance by, or on behalf of, any plaintiff. Upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth on the record at that hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defenda
More

ORDER

This action came before the court on May 19, 2016, for hearing of defendants' motion to compel production against plaintiff Christopher White. Attorney Kelly Trujillo appeared telephonically behalf of the defendants. There was no appearance by, or on behalf of, any plaintiff.

Upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth on the record at that hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' April 19, 2016 motion to compel (Dkt. No. 39) is granted;

2. Plaintiff Christopher White shall produce responsive documents within 21 days of the date of this order, or file a statement that he is no longer pursuing damages for lost income in this action1;

3. Within 14 days of the date of this order, plaintiff Christopher White shall file a response as to why he should not be sanctioned in the amount of $250 for failing to file a timely opposition, or a statement of non-opposition, and for failing to appear at the May 19, 2016 hearing; and

4. If plaintiff Christopher White fails to file a timely response to this order the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff Christopher White be dismissed from this action.

FootNotes


1. If after receiving plaintiff's production, defendants determine that a further deposition of plaintiff Christopher White is necessary, defendants may, after meeting and conferring with Mr. White, raise the issue of a further deposition with the court, including who should be responsible for paying for that deposition.
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