UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 15, 2007
DAVID RAYMOND ANDREWS, PLAINTIFF,
M.C. WHITMAN, CORRECTIONS COUNSELOR; G.J. JANDA, CHIEF DEPUTY WARDEN; M.E. BOURLAND, CHIEF DEPUTY WARDEN; T. OCHOA, CHIEF DEPUTY WARDEN; C. BUTLER, CAPTAIN; W.C. ROBERTS, CAPTAIN; F. RUTLEDGE, SERGEANT; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, A PUBLIC ENTITY; ET ALIA UNIDENTIFIED DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Nita L. Stormes U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING BILL OF EXCEPTIONS OR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 33]
On July 13, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for a protective order staying any and all discovery pending the Court's final order on Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court took the matter under submission and on July 23, before Plaintiff's opposition was due, granted the motion. [Doc. No. 28.]
Plaintiff then asked the Court for an extension of time to respond to the motion for protective order, but the Court rejected that document via discrepancy order because it had already ruled on the motion. [Doc. No. 31.] The Court, however, accepted another document from Plaintiff entitled "Bill of Exceptions." [Doc. Nos. 32, 33.] In the Bill of Exceptions, Plaintiff objects to the Court's July 23 Order because he never had the opportunity to respond to the motion for a protective order. The Court construes the "Bill of Exceptions" as a motion for reconsideration.
The Court may relieve a party from an order for reasons of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). Here, Plaintiff offers no reasons for the Court to reconsider its order and remove the stay on discovery. This case is still at the pleading stage, and the Court will not issue an order regulating discovery and other pretrial proceedings until after Defendants answer the operative complaint in the matter. Therefore, the Court stands by its original ruling and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
IT IT SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.