IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 18, 2008
KIMBERLY R. OLSON, PLAINTIFF,
ADAM ORECK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Pending before the court is plaintiff's request to modify the scheduling order and a motion to quash.
Plaintiff's motion to quash relates to a deposition subpoena for production of records from plaintiff's physician. Defendants filed a response to this motion, indicating that they have withdrawn the subpoena, and instead will be taking plaintiff's physician's deposition. Plaintiff has not filed a reply disputing this. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to quash is moot.
Plaintiff has also requested a modification of the scheduling order. She indicates that she needs an addition 120 days to complete the discovery due to her health condition. Defendants have not filed an opposition to plaintiff's request. This request will be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to quash (Doc. 51) is denied as moot;
2. Plaintiff's request to modify the scheduling order (Docs. 52, 53) is granted; and
3. The scheduling order is modified as follows:
a. The parties shall exchange lists of expert witnesses, if not already done, no later than September 30, 2008. Such disclosures must be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) and (B). The parties are reminded of their obligation to supplement these disclosures when required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1). Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may include the preclusion of testimony or other evidence offered through the expert witness;
b. Discovery shall be completed, and all motions pertaining to discovery shall be noticed to be heard, by January 9, 2009;
c. All other pre-trial motions, including dispositive motions, shall be noticed to be heard by April 6, 2009; and
d. At a later stage in the proceedings, the parties will be required to submit reports on the status of this litigation. Following submission of status reports from all parties, the court will issue a final scheduling order.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.