This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On February 26, 2013, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and noticed the motion for hearing on March 27, 2013. Dckt. No. 55. The motion has since been continued to May 8, 2013, along with a variety of motions filed by plaintiff. Dckt. Nos. 64, 74; see also Dckt. Nos. 71, 73, 76, 77, 78, 80.
Then, on April 1, 2013, plaintiff filed three additional motions: (1) a motion to compel defendant to produce documents, Dckt. No. 81; (2) a motion to strike a declaration from Cheri Smith that was filed on March 29, 2013, Dckt. No. 82; and (3) a motion for leave of court to join defendants in this action, Dckt. No. 83. Plaintiff noticed all three motions for May 1, 2013. Id.
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(e), which provides that if related or counter-motions are filed "the Court may continue the hearing on the original and all related motions so as to give all parties reasonable opportunity to serve and file oppositions and replies to all pending motions," the motion to strike and motion to join defendants will be continued to May 8, 2013, so that all pending motions will be heard on that date.
However, plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to produce two documents that he requested in discovery must be denied as untimely.*fn1 Dckt. No. 81. The status (pretrial scheduling) order issued in this action provides that all discovery was to be completed by January 25, 2013 and all motions to compel discovery were to be heard not later than December 19, 2012. Dckt. No. 16 at 3. The order provides that "the word '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 complied with." Id. Plaintiff has not requested modification of that scheduling order, nor has he explained why good cause would justify doing so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Therefore, the motion to compel, Dckt. No. 81, must be denied without prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to compel, Dckt. No. 81, is denied.
2. The hearings on plaintiff's motion to strike the declaration of Cheri Smith and motion for leave of court to join defendants in this action, Dckt. Nos. 82 and 83, are continued to May 8, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8.
3. On or before April 17, 2013, defendant shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to strike and the motion to join defendants.
4. Plaintiff may file a reply to defendant's opposition(s), if any, on or before May 1, 2013.*fn2