Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00411/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00411-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAYNA PADULA, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-05-0411 MCE EFB 

vs.

ROBERT MORRIS, et al., 

ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

On November 15, 2007, defendants filed a motion to compel plaintiff Ronda Padula to

attend her deposition, and set the matter for hearing on December 19, 2007, before the

undersigned. The district judge has previously extended the discovery deadline from November

14, 2007, to December 21, 2007. The scheduling order provides that all discovery must be

completed by the discovery cut-off date, and that “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.” (emphasis added). 

Based on the pretrial scheduling order entered by the district judge, defendants’ motion is

untimely as any order thereon cannot be complied with by the December 21, 2007, deadline. 

////

Case 2:05-cv-00411-MCE-EFB Document 50 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, defendants’ motion is dropped from the undersigned’s December 19, 2007, law and

motion calendar. Defendants may re-notice the motion to an earlier date upon application for an

order shortening time in accordance with the Local Rules, or after having sought and received

another discovery deadline extension from the district judge. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 15, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00411-MCE-EFB Document 50 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 2