Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hernandez v. City of Sacramento, 2:17-cv-2311 JAM DB. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190123988 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . On December 11, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel answers at deposition and for sanctions. (ECF No. 31.) That motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on January 25, 2019. Pursuant to Local Rule 251(a), the parties' Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement must have been filed on or before January 18, 2019. However, no Joint Statement was filed. 1 Moreover, plaintiffs' discovery motion is noticed for hearing before the undersi
More

ORDER

On December 11, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel answers at deposition and for sanctions. (ECF No. 31.) That motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on January 25, 2019. Pursuant to Local Rule 251(a), the parties' Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement must have been filed on or before January 18, 2019. However, no Joint Statement was filed.1

Moreover, plaintiffs' discovery motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). Discovery in this action must have been "completed by January 4, 2019." (ECF No. 7 at 4.) "`[C]ompleted' 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.) Thus, the time for the completion of discovery in this action has closed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' December 11, 2018 motion to compel (ECF No. 31) is denied without prejudice and the January 25, 2019 hearing is vacated.

FootNotes


1. A Joint Statement is not required when there has a been a complete failure to produce or a party is seeking only the imposition of sanctions. Local Rule 251(e). Here, plaintiffs' motion seeks to compel answers in addition to sanctions. Moreover, it does not appear from plaintiffs' motion that a noticed deposition went forward, at which the defendant failed to produce a witness. Instead, it appears that the parties could not reach agreement on the issue and, instead of proceeding with a noticed deposition, plaintiffs filed the pending motion. Thus, there was not a complete failure to produce. Accordingly, it appears that Local Ruel 251(e) is not applicable.
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