IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 7, 2010
DEANNA PELLETIER, PLAINTIFF,
PACIFIC WEBWORKS, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff previously noticed a motion to compel discovery responses from defendant and noticed the hearing on her motion for July 22, 2010. (Dkt. No. 23.) Because defendant's attorneys have hearings in other matters that conflict with the scheduled hearing in this matter, the parties stipulated to the proposed continuance of the hearing on plaintiff's motion to compel to August 5, 2010. (Dkt. No. 24.)
The undersigned cannot approve the stipulation. If the undersigned were to approve the parties stipulation as proposed, the parties would necessarily violate the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order entered by the United States District Judge assigned to this case, which provides that "[d]iscovery pre-certification shall be completed by August 2, 2010." (Dkt. No. 18 at 2 (emphases in original).) Because the undersigned lacks the authority to modify the scheduling order issued by the District Judge, the parties must seek any extension of the pre- certification discovery completion deadline from the District Judge.
Regardless of whether the hearing remains on July 22, 2010, or is ultimately rescheduled, the parties are reminded of their obligations under this court's Local Rules to meet and confer and prepare and file a "Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement" in advance of the hearing. See Local Rule 251. The parties Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement, or affidavit filed pursuant to Local Rule 251(d), shall be filed at least seven days before the scheduled hearing date. Local Rule 251(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.