Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02320/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02320-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN WHITEWAY,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

FEDEX KINKO’S OFFICE AND PRINT

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C-05-2320 SBA (JCS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

COMPEL [Docket No. 175]

The parties filed a joint letter dated June 15, 2007, reflecting a meet-and-confer session with

respect to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Docket No. 175]. 

The parties have reached certain agreements with respect to supplementation reflected on

page one of their joint letter. The Court ORDERS the parties to comply with the agreements

reached in their meet-and-confer session.

The remainder of the Motion to Compel is untimely. In setting a new schedule for the case

on April 6, 2007, the Court indicated that the discovery cutoff had already been set in the case and

that the parties were required to schedule motions regarding discovery so that they could be heard

“before the above discovery cutoff.” April 6, 2007 Order at 1. The discovery deadline in this case

was set by the Court in an order signed on March 16, 2007. That order set a general discovery cutoff

of March 21, 2007, and indicated that the last day to file and notice any motion related to general

discovery would be April 15, 2007.

Under any interpretation of these orders, Plaintiff’s filing of the instant motion on May 2,

2007, was untimely. First, to the extent that the April 6th Order intended to include not just the

discovery cutoff, but also the deadline for any motion to compel included in the March 16 Order,

Case 4:05-cv-02320-SBA Document 176 Filed 06/22/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

that April 15th deadline was long past by the time this motion was filed. Alternatively, the April 6th

Order clearly reflects the Court’s intent that any motion to compel had to actually have been heard

and decided by the March 21, 2007 deadline. Finally, if one were to look solely at the Local Rules,

motions to compel with regard to general discovery must filed not later than seven (7) court days

after such discovery cutoff. Local Rule 26-2. Under this analysis, the instant Motion to Compel

would have had to have been filed not later than March 30, 2007. Under any reasonable

interpretation, this Motion is untimely. Accordingly, there was no excusable neglect, and the

Motion to Compel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2007

_______________________________

Joseph C. Spero

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02320-SBA Document 176 Filed 06/22/07 Page 2 of 2