IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 29, 2012
ROBERT MORRIS AND MICHELLE MORRIS,
CITY OF FRESNO, ET AL.,
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER AND SANCTIONS
(Doc. No. 128)
On May 6 and 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed motions for protective orders and sanctions. See Doc. Nos. 118, 121. On May 16, 2011, the Magistrate Judge dismissed these motions without prejudice for failing to meet and confer prior to filing. See Doc. No. 124. On August 29, 2011, the Clerk's office entered another motion for protective order and sanctions, but the actual filing date of this motion was also May 9, 2011. See Doc. No. 128. The Docket Sheet in this matter shows that the motion entered on August 29 (Doc. No. 128) is active.
However, like the previous motions, there is no indication that Plaintiff met and conferred prior to filing Doc. No. 128. Thus, that motion, like the others, would have been dismissed without prejudice for failing to meet and confer. Moreover, on September 9, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a minute order (that followed a hearing) in which he ruled on various discovery disputes, which would have related to the prior motions for protective orders and sanctions. See Doc. No. 132. Additionally, all of the above motions for protective orders and sanctions were filed by Plaintiff while he was representing himself. Retained counsel has since appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, see Doc. No. 154, and there is no indication that Doc. No. 128 is a motion that is meant to be pursued.
In light of the above, it is apparent that Doc. No. 128 is not an active motion. For administrative purposes, the Court will formally deny the motion for protective order and sanctions.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Doc. No. 128 is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.