UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California Oakland Division
January 18, 2011
CITY OF PITTSBURG, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Laurel Beeler United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
[Re: ECF No. 31]
On December 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a variety of relief in relation to non-party Javier Ortiz's failure to appear at his noticed deposition. Motion, ECF No. 31. Plaintiff sought, 19 among other things, an order compelling Mr. Ortiz to appear for his deposition. Because a motion to compel attendance at a deposition is a discovery motion, the court denied without prejudice 21 Plaintiff's motion and directed him to comply with the discovery dispute-related procedures that are 22 set forth in the undersigned's standing order. Notice of Referral, ECF No. 35; see Order of 23 Reference to Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 27. 24 Upon reflection (and Plaintiff's request), the court believes that compliance with the standing 25 order should be excepted in this particular instance. As the dispute centers around Mr. Ortiz's 26 unwillingness to accept service of Plaintiff's deposition subpoena and to appear for his noticed 27 deposition, the court agrees with Plaintiff that it makes little sense to require Plaintiff to meet-and-28 confer with a recalcitrant non-party and to file a joint letter describing, presumably, only Plaintiff's side of the dispute.
Accordingly, within three days, Plaintiff may re-file his motion for hearing before the 2 undersigned on March 1, 2012. Briefing on the motion shall proceed in accordance with this 3 District's Civil Local Rule 7-3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.