Filed: Jun. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION WITHOUT SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 67) BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee ("Plaintiff") is a former civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendant Perez for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. On October 16, 2018, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling o
Summary: ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION WITHOUT SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 67) BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee ("Plaintiff") is a former civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendant Perez for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. On October 16, 2018, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling or..
More
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION WITHOUT SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 67)
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee ("Plaintiff") is a former civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendant Perez for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On October 16, 2018, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order in this action, setting the deadline for completion of all discovery for June 16, 2019. (ECF No. 56.) That order was served on Plaintiff on October 16, 2018, and re-served on Plaintiff on November 8, 2018 following Plaintiff's change of address.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's "Objection to an Untimely Deposition without Scheduling Order," filed June 5, 2019. (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff appears to object to Defendant Perez's taking of Plaintiff's deposition without the Court having issued a scheduling order for discovery.
As noted above, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order in this action nearly eight months ago, and the order was served on Plaintiff twice. As it appears Plaintiff's primary objection to the taking of his deposition is the lack of a discovery order, and a discovery order has been issued in this matter, Plaintiff's objection, (ECF No. 67), is OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
