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.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Sunbeam Products

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


September 18, 2012

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Presently before the court is defendant's motion to compel depositions of expert witnesses. (Dkt. No. 27.) As an initial matter, the motion was not noticed for a hearing in accordance with E.D. Cal. L.R. 251, despite the pretrial scheduling order's admonition that "[a]ll motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge's calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court." (Dkt. No. 6 at 2.)

Furthermore, the undersigned notes that the district judge had ordered all expert discovery to be completed by September 25, 2012. (Dkt. No. 24.) According to the pretrial scheduling order, "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." (Dkt. No. 6 at 2.) Nevertheless, in defendant's motion to compel, defendant requests the court to compel the depositions of plaintiff's experts to take place in October 2012. (Dkt. No. 27.) Even assuming arguendo that defendant's motion has merit, the undersigned cannot presently grant the relief requested, because it would be inconsistent with the current expert discovery deadline set by the district judge. Before the undersigned can entertain a properly-noticed motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff's experts, defendant must first seek leave from the district judge to modify the pre-trial scheduling order and extend the deadline for expert discovery.

Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion to compel (dkt. no. 27) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

20120918

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



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.