IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 29, 2012
MARK THOMSEN, PLAINTIFF,
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN FIRE DISTRICT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
On March 28, 2012, the court heard, on shortened time, plaintiff's motion to compel defendant (1) to comply with this court's March 12, 2012 order compelling further responses and production of documents; (2) to produce all documents identified in their Rule 26 disclosure; and (3) to provide supplemental responses to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories to defendant. Dckt. No. 56; see also Dckt. No. 54. Attorneys Nilesh Choudhary and Joel Rapaport appeared at the hearing on behalf of plaintiff and attorney Matthew Engebretson appeared on behalf of defendant.
As stated on the record, and for the reasons stated on the record, that motion, Dckt. No. 56, is granted in part and denied in part, with each party to bear its own costs. Additionally, as stated on the record, in light of the April 2, 2012 discovery completion deadline, the parties' stipulation for an order shortening time on plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set two, and plaintiff's request for production of documents, set two, Dckt. No. 60, will not be signed, and that motion to compel will not be heard.*fn1 See E.D. Cal. L.R. 144(e) ("Stipulations for the issuance of an order shortening time require the approval of the Judge or Magistrate Judge on whose calendar the matter is to be heard before such stipulations are given effect.").