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.

Timothy Watts v. R. Ramos

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


December 16, 2010

TIMOTHY WATTS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
R. RAMOS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 28, 2010, the court issued a discovery order requiring discovery to be completed by June 1, 2010, and dispositive motions, if any, to be filed within 90 days of this date. As of October 1, 2010, no dispositive motions had been filed and the court issued an order requiring the parties to submit status reports in anticipation of setting this matter for trial. Plaintiff filed his status report on October 15, 2010, and defendants filed their status report on December 6, 2010. Also before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 25).

In their status reports, the parties state that the matter is not ready for trial. For his part, plaintiff states that additional discovery is needed and that he anticipates filing a motion for summary judgment. For their part, defendants state that they have not yet completed plaintiff's deposition and that "said deposition could be completed within 45 days time should the Court grant leave to do so." Defendants also state that they anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment "with[in] 60 days of receipt of Plaintiff's deposition transcript." Defendants ask the court to "set a 45 day deadline for completion of discovery, with dispositive motions to be filed no later than 60 days thereafter."

It appears that the parties have either ignored or overlooked the court's January 2010 scheduling order which set deadlines for the completion of discovery and filing of dispositive motions, both of which have passed.*fn1 To the extent the parties, through their status report, seek an extension of these expired deadlines, they have not demonstrated good cause for doing so. As to plaintiff's deposition in particular, defendants have not demonstrated good cause for noticing such deposition for a date after the discovery cut-off set in the January 2010 scheduling order.

The court will provide the parties an opportunity to file motions for leave to conduct additional discovery and for extensions of the discovery cut-off and dispotitive motion filing deadlines. If no such motions are filed within the time permitted by this order, the court will proceed to set this matter for trial. In the meantime, because discovery closed on June 1, 2010, and this deadline has not been extended, plaintiff's motion to compel is untimely and is denied as such.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties may file motions to extend the discovery cut-off and dispositive motion filing deadlines within 30 days of the date of this order; and

2. Plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 25) is denied as untimely.


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.