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.

James M. Lanier v. Fresno Unified School District

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 14, 2013

JAMES M. LANIER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE; MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER

A. Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Further Discovery

On February 20, 2013, Plaintiff James M. Lanier ("Plaintiff") filed a motion to compel further discovery responses from Fresno Unified School District ("Defendant"). (Doc. 71.) Defendant filed an opposition on February 29, 2013. (Doc. 74.)

On March 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a "Stipulation re: Motion to Compel." (Doc. 76, 77.) The Stipulation, which was not signed by Defendant, represents that Defendant would attend the hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel further discovery, and that Defendant would provide further discovery responses. (Doc. 76, 77.) Defendant filed an Objection to Plaintiff's Stipulation, stating that it did not join in, or consent to, the filing of that document. (Doc. 78.)

The Court deems this matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and vacates the hearing set for March 15, 2013. (Doc. 71.) Having reviewed the moving and opposition papers, the declarations, exhibits, stipulations and objections related thereto, as well as the Court's file, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to compel further discovery.

When a discovery dispute is brought before the Court, Local Rule 251(c) requires the parties to file a Joint Discovery Statement regarding the dispute at least seven days prior to the noticed hearing on the motion. See, L.R. 251(c). This Joint Statement must demonstrate the parties have met and conferred regarding their dispute, the details of the meet and confer efforts, a statement of the nature of the action and its factual disputes insofar as they are pertinent to the matters to be decided, as well as the contentions of each party as to each contested issue. Id. If the parties fail to comply with Local Rule 251, the hearing may be dropped from the court's calendar without prejudice. L.R. 251(a).

Here, the parties have not complied with Local Rule 251. The parties did not file a joint statement containing any of the requirements enunciated in Local Rule 251(c). Moreover, Defendant's opposition indicates the parties have not met and conferred adequately as required by Local Rule 251(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel further discovery is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

B. The Parties' Stipulation to Modify the Scheduling Order

On March 11, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation to modify the scheduling order. (Doc. 75.) The parties represent there has been difficulty obtaining Plaintiff's deposition due to his, and his wife's, medical problems. Having considered the parties' stipulation, the Court finds that good cause exists to continue the scheduling order to the following dates:

1. Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff: May 17, 2013

2. Expert Discovery Cutoff: June 7, 2013

3. Non-Dispositive Motion Filing: June 14, 2013

4. Dispositive Motion Filing: July 16, 2013

5. Pre-Trial Conference: September 30, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.

6. Jury Trial: November 19, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130314

© 1992-2013 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.