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.

Mark Thomsen v. Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District; and Does 1-50

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


March 23, 2012

MARK THOMSEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN FIRE DISTRICT; AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edmund F. Brennan United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

On March 23, 2012, plaintiff filed an application for an order shortening time on a motion for contempt for defendant's failure to comply with the court's order of March 12, 2012; to compel further responses to plaintiff's special interrogatories, set one; and to compel production of documents pursuant to defendant's Rule 26 disclosure. Dckt. No. 53. Plaintiff's counsel contends that he has attempted to secure the requested documents for the past two months, and that although "Defendant provides just enough documents and information to make us believe that they are going to fully comply in just a little more time, . . . the balance of the information has never arrived, despite a Court order and Defendant's counsel acknowledgments that they have not turned over everything requested . . . ." Id. at 2. According to plaintiff's counsel, "it is imperative that this be heard [as] expeditiously as possible" because the discovery cutoff date in this case is April 2, 2012. Id. Plaintiff's counsel contends that he sought a stipulation to shorten time from defense counsel, but was unable to obtain such a stipulation. Id. at 5-6.

Eastern District of California Local Rule 144(e) provides that "Applications to shorten time shall set forth by affidavit of counsel the circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order shortening time [and] will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel showing a satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order and for the failure of counsel to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from other counsel or parties in the action." In light of the representations set forth in plaintiff's counsel's declaration, Dckt. No. 53, plaintiff's application for an order shortening time will be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's application for an order shortening time, Dckt. No. 53, is granted.

2. Plaintiff's motion to compel will be heard on Wednesday, March 28, 2012, at 4:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 24.

3. By 3:00 p.m. today (Friday, March 23, 2012), plaintiff's counsel shall file a copy of the motion to compel.

4. By 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 26, 2012, the parties shall file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement ("Joint Statement"), providing (1) each specific disputed discovery category or item; (2) the response; (3) the moving party's position; and (4) the opposition.*fn1

5. In addition to filing the Joint Statement electronically in .pdf format, plaintiff shall also submit the Joint Statement by email in Word or Word Perfect format to thinkle@caed.uscourts.gov by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 26, 2012. The email subject line must contain the words "Joint Statement," as well as the case number.

SO ORDERED.

Edmund F. Brennan


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.