Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gilman v. Schwarzenegger

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 28, 2010

RICHARD M. GILMAN, ET AL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS,

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiffs' motion to compel, filed on December 23, 2009, came on for hearing on March 4, 2010, before the undersigned. The court, by Order, filed on March 5, 2010, directed defendants to produce a designated percentage of parole hearing transcripts for lifer inmates within thirty days as well as a list of such inmates to plaintiffs. In addition, the parties were ordered to file, as set forth therein, a joint supplemental statement by March 15, 2010. Thereafter, pursuant to a stipulation, the parties were permitted until March 19, 2010, to file the supplemental joint statement. See Order, filed on March 22, 2010.

In the supplemental joint statement re: discovery disagreements, filed on March 19, 2010, plaintiffs and defendants jointly proposed that the undersigned not rule on plaintiff's motion to compel production of the lifer packets at that time, averring that once the parties obtained needed information and consulted with their statisticians, the number of lifer packets that needed to be reviewed would be determined. See Supplemental Joint Statement, filed on March 19, 2010. The parties also stated that if the parties were unable to reach an agreement, they would file a status report setting forth their respective positions for the court to rule on the motion at some undefined point in the future. As more than three months have passed since the filing of the supplemental joint statement with no status report forthcoming, it may be that the parties have reached an agreement. In any case, the court is unwilling to hold this matter in abeyance indefinitely. By Order, filed on October 15, 2009, Judge Karlton stated that the parties in this class action could commence discovery. No deadline for discovery set by the District Judge appears in the case docket. Therefore, should the matter at issue not be resolved, plaintiff is free to renew the motion to compel by filing a new one.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery responses, filed on December 23, 2010 (docket # 213), is hereby VACATED without prejudice.

20100628

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.