IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 4, 2011
RUBEN PEREZ, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS,
VEZER INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONALS, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the court is plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery responses, originally filed on September 15, 2011 and currently noticed for hearing on October 12, 2011. The court notes that the deadline to complete all non-expert discovery in this matter was September 23, 2011. (Dkt. No. 73, at p. 4.) The district judge's pretrial scheduling order provides that, in the context of non-expert discovery, the term "completed" means that "all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge's calendar in accordance with the local rules of this Court." (See Pretrial Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 48, at p. 2.)
Therefore, plaintiffs' motion to compel is untimely. Although it appears that plaintiffs have moved to modify the pretrial scheduling order to extend the deadline to complete non-expert discovery, the district judge has not yet ruled on that motion. As such, plaintiffs' motion should be denied without prejudice.
In the event that the district judge grants plaintiffs' motion to modify the pretrial scheduling order and extends the non-expert discovery deadlines, the parties are reminded that all motions dealing with discovery matters must be filed and noticed in accordance with E.D. Cal. L.R. 251. Any joint statement submitted shall address with particularity all of the matters outlined in E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(c). The court will not consider separate memoranda and unauthorized filings in addition to the joint statement.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The October 12, 2011 hearing on plaintiffs' motion to compel is vacated.
2. Plaintiffs' motion to compel (dkt. no. 95) is denied without prejudice.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.