IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 15, 2012
MARK THOMSEN, PLAINTIFF,
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN FIRE DISTRICT; AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
On February 28, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and production of documents associated with defendant's Rule 26 disclosures. Dckt. No. 49. The motion was noticed for hearing on March 21, 2012. Id.
Local Rule 251(a) requires the parties to a discovery dispute to file a Joint Statement Re Discovery Disagreement at least seven days before the scheduled hearing date, or in this instance, by March 14, 2012. E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(a). The rule further provides that the hearing on the discovery motion may be dropped from calendar without prejudice if the Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement is not timely filed. Id.
Although the deadline has passed, the docket reveals that no Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement has been filed in connection with plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and production of documents associated with defendant's Rule 26 disclosures. Therefore, that motion, Dckt. No. 49, is denied without prejudice and the March 21, 2012 hearing thereon is vacated.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.