UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 20, 2012
LUPE NIETO JR.,
DRAKE HODGE ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc. 35)
On October 10, 2012, the Court issued its order granting in part and denying in part, Defendant's motion to compel discovery. (Doc. 33) The Court served Plaintiff a copy of this order at the prison where he was housed but on November 1, 2012, the mailing was returned as "undeliverable, paroled." According to Local Rule 183(b), Plaintiff is obligated to keep the Court apprised of his correct mailing address. His failure to provide a change of address within 63 days of the date the mail was returned to the Court, will result in a recommendation that the matter be dismissed. L.R. 183(b).
In the meanwhile, Defendant has awaited production of the discovery the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide in its October 10, 2012 order, but none has been forthcoming. (Doc. 35 at 2) Given this, Defendant seeks an amendment to the scheduling order to allow him to conduct discovery, including Plaintiff's deposition if Plaintiff reappears in this litigation. Id.
Therefore, good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS:
1. Defendant's request to modify the scheduling order is GRANTED;
2. The scheduling order is amended as follows:
a. Non-expert discovery SHALL be completed by Defendant no later than 1/17/13. Because Plaintiff has voluntarily absented himself from this litigation, Plaintiff's deadline for 6 completing discovery remains unchanged; 7
b. Dispositive motions SHALL be filed no later than 2/15/13.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.