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.

Lieu Thi Truong et al v. Sacramento County Sheriff Department et al

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


September 21, 2012

LIEU THI TRUONG ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT ET AL. , DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Presently before the court is plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions of various non-expert witnesses and to expand discovery, noticed for hearing on October 18, 2012. (Dkt. No. 47.)

The undersigned notes that the district judge, in his July 24, 2012 amended pretrial scheduling order, had ordered all non-expert discovery to be completed by September 28, 2012. (Dkt. No. 46 at 2.) According to the amended 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." (Id.)

Even assuming arguendo that plaintiffs' motion has merit, the undersigned cannot presently grant the relief requested, because it would be inconsistent with the current non-expert discovery deadline set by the district judge. Furthermore, the amended pre-trial scheduling order may not be modified without leave of the district judge upon a showing of good cause. (See Dkt. No. 46 at 12.) Thus, before the undersigned can entertain a motion to compel these depositions, plaintiffs must first seek leave from the district judge to modify the pre-trial scheduling order and extend the deadline for non-expert discovery.

Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The October 18, 2012 hearing on plaintiffs' motion to compel is VACATED.

2. Plaintiffs' motion to compel (dkt. no. 47) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

20120921

© 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.