Filed: Apr. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . On March 30, 2018, defendants Michael Goold and Scott Jones filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 65.) The motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on April 13, 2018. Id. Local Rule 251(a) provides that motions regarding discovery disagreements shall be noticed for hearing at least twenty-one days from the date of filing. Local Rules 251(e) does allow for the hearing of a motion regarding a discovery disagreement on only fourteen days' n
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . On March 30, 2018, defendants Michael Goold and Scott Jones filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 65.) The motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on April 13, 2018. Id. Local Rule 251(a) provides that motions regarding discovery disagreements shall be noticed for hearing at least twenty-one days from the date of filing. Local Rules 251(e) does allow for the hearing of a motion regarding a discovery disagreement on only fourteen days' no..
More
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, Magistrate Judge.
On March 30, 2018, defendants Michael Goold and Scott Jones filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 65.) The motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on April 13, 2018. Id. Local Rule 251(a) provides that motions regarding discovery disagreements shall be noticed for hearing at least twenty-one days from the date of filing.
Local Rules 251(e) does allow for the hearing of a motion regarding a discovery disagreement on only fourteen days' notice when there has been a complete and total failure to respond. Here, however, defendants' motion simply asserts that "Plaintiffs were duly noticed for depositions for March 5, 6, and 7, 2018," but defendants "were informed by counsel the deponents were not available," and no further dates were provided by plaintiffs. (ECF No. 65 at 2.) Even if true, that alone does not constitute a complete and total failure to respond. A complete and total failure to respond would be, for example, the failure to appear at a properly noticed deposition which went forward. In this regard, it is not clear from defendants' filing if defendants' motion falls under Local Rule 251(e).
Moreover, on March 23, 2016, the assigned District Judge issued a Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order, which provides that "[a]ll discovery shall be completed by April 13, 2018." (ECF No. 61 at 4.) The order explains that:
. . . "completed" means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with.
(Id.) In this regard, there is not sufficient time remaining in the discovery period for the undersigned to hear defendants' motion on April 13, 2018, compel depositions, and for that order to be obeyed that same day.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' March 30, 2018 motion to compel (ECF No. 65) is denied without prejudice as untimely and the April 13, 2018 hearing is vacated.
