IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 11, 2008
RICHARD MADDOX, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
On July 16, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery, and set the matter for hearing on August 20, 2008.
The district judge's pretrial scheduling order set the discovery deadline as August 6, 2008, and specified that all discovery shall be completed by that date. The order defined the term "completed" to mean 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 orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed for such compliance shall have expired." See Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (doc. no. 46).
Upon review of the pretrial scheduling order, the court notes that plaintiffs set their motion for hearing after the discovery cut-off date. This court has no authority to modify the district judge's pretrial scheduling order. While the court notes that plaintiffs have filed a motion with the district judge to modify the pretrial scheduling order, unless plaintiffs prevail on their motion to modify, this court is without authority to hear any discovery motion. Plaintiffs' July 16, 2008, motion is therefore denied without prejudice as untimely and the August 20, 2008, hearing is vacated.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.