Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Zapata v. Flintco

October 7, 2010

JOHN ZAPATA DBA ZAPATA COLLECTION, SERVICE, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FLINTCO, INC., AN OKLAHOMA CORPORATION, SAN JOAQUIN DELTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION AND JOHN DOE 1-25, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

On October 6, 2010, plaintiff filed the following two documents: (1) "Motion for Protective Order" (Dkt. No. 37); and (2) "Opposition to Monetary Sanctions, Opposition to Dismissal, Request to Modify Order, Request for Sanctions" (Dkt. No. 38). The undersigned will deny all of the relief requested in these filings.

I. Motion for Protective Order

Plaintiff's motion for a protective order pertains to the location where his deposition, which pertains to limited issues discussed in the court's prior orders (Dkt. Nos. 29, 31, 36), will take place. The motion states, in its entirety: "Plaintiff requests that this court issue an order requiring that the deposition of Plaintiff be conducted in the Eastern District of California pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and not in Los Angeles, or a mutual site agreed by both parties." (Mot. for Protective Order at 1.)

As an initial matter, plaintiff's motion is defectively noticed in that it does not conform to the notice requirements of this court's Local Rules 230(b) or 251(a). Ordinarily, the court would permit plaintiff to re-notice his motion in conformity with the Local Rules. However, the undersigned will deny plaintiff's motion because the court has already addressed the issue of the location of plaintiff's limited deposition in its order entered October 5, 2010. (Dkt. No. 36.) Nothing in plaintiff's motion for a protective order persuades the court that it should modify its October 6, 2010 order.

II. The "Opposition"

Plaintiff's document that is styled an "Opposition" opposes several of defendants' requests for sanctions included in defendants' reply to plaintiff's response to a previously entered order to show cause. Plaintiff's "Opposition" requests relief as follows:

1. Plaintiff submits and requests the following from this court;

A. That this court modify the order dated June 10, 2010

i. That Plaintiff should not be required to go to Los Angeles for his deposition and that the Deposition is conducted at a location pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ii. That a deadline for 100% competition of issue regarding the assignment be set within 30 calendar days.

B. That the courts deny Defendant Request for monetary sanction.

C. That this court imposes sanctions against Defendants for its misrepresentation and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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