IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 24, 2011
ANDREA VAN SCOY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
NEW ALBERTSON'S, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Presently before the court is defendants' "Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena" and "Motion for Protective Orders." Defendants seek to prevent plaintiffs from taking the deposition of non-party witness Donna Breitenbach, as well as the depositions of defendant Save Mart Supermarkets and its employee, Lois Douglas. (Dkt. Nos. 98, 101.) Defendants' motions are currently set to be heard by the undersigned on January 27, 2011.*fn1
On January 18, 2011, the undersigned issued an order requiring the parties to meet and confer regarding the pending motions in an effort to reach a mutually agreeable resolution of the pending discovery disputes. (Order, Jan. 18, 2011, at 4, Dkt. No. 112.) That order further required the parties to file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement ("Joint Statement") on or before January 21, 2011. (Id.) Finally, the order required the parties to show cause in writing, on or before January 24, 2011, why the pending motions should not be held in abeyance pending the resolution of a request or motion to modify the existing Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order. (Id.) On January 21, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Statement (Joint Statement, Dkt. No. 116), and on January 24, 2011, plaintiff filed a statement in response to the order to show cause (Dkt.No. 117.)
The Joint Statement indicates that despite two attempts to resolve the present dispute without court intervention, the parties were unable to reach an informal resolution. (Joint Statement at 1-2.) In the Joint Statement, the parties represent that they do not oppose having defendants' motions held in abeyance pending the outcome of a request or motion seeking an order from the district court judge, Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., to reopen discovery. (See id. at 2.) The Joint Statement represents that plaintiff intends to file a motion or request to modify the existing Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order. (Id.) Plaintiff's January 24, 2011 statement is in accord.
In light of the undersigned's January 18, 2011 order, and the representations in the parties' recent filings, the undersigned drops defendants' motions from the law and motion calendar, subject to the re-noticing of those motions at a later date if so desired. The undersigned will consider a request to shorten time on defendants' re-noticed motions, preferably by stipulation of the parties rather than ex parte application. See E. Dist. Local Rule 144. In any event, the parties shall comply with Local Rule 251 insofar as any re-notice motions are concerned.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The court's order requiring the parties to show cause why these motions should not be held in abeyance pending Judge England's resolution of a request or motion to modify the existing Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (Dkt. No. 112) is discharged.
2. Defendants' motion for protective order and motion to quash will be held in abeyance pending Judge England's resolution of a motion, to be filed by plaintiffs, seeking modification of the existing Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order.
3. The hearing on defendants' motions presently set for January 27, 2011, is vacated, subject to re-noticing by defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.