Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03028/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03028-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:633 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AVRUM V. GRATCH, M.D.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

Secretary of the U.S. Dept.

Of Veterans Affairs,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C04-3028 JSW (BZ)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO

INTERROGATORIES IN

COMPLIANCE WITH STIPULATION

AND ORDER RE: OUTSTANDING

DISCOVERY ISSUES, FILED JUNE

20, 2005

Now before me is plaintiff’s motion to compel

supplemental answers to interrogatories in compliance with

Stipulation and Order Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues, filed

on June 20, 2005. Pursuant to stipulation, the parties agreed

that defendant would produce certain information for each

Title 38 employee who worked as a staff physician at the

Surgery Service at the United States Department of Veterans

Affairs Medical Center in Palo Alto, California between

January 1, 1998 and the present. See June 20, 2005

Stipulation and Order Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues (Docket

#26). The stipulation also provided that plaintiff would file

Case 3:04-cv-03028-JSW Document 58 Filed 08/16/05 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

27

28

2

a motion to compel on or before June 28, 2005. Id. Plaintiff

did not file a motion to compel on or before June 28, 2005.

Pursuant to the June 20, 2005 Stipulation, a telephonic

discovery conference was held on July 6, 2005. As the parties

had failed to satisfy their meet and confer obligations, I

continued the conference to July 11, 2005, and ordered them to

meet and confer. On July 11, 2005, I held a second telephonic

discovery conference. I then issued a scheduling order

granting plaintiff leave to file a motion to compel by July

18, 2005. The scheduling order specifically noted, “In

granting leave to file a motion, the court offers no view as

to whether the motion is timely.” See July 12, 2005

Scheduling Order. On July 19, 2005, plaintiff filed this

motion to compel.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is untimely. Plaintiff

stipulated to file a motion to compel on or before June 28,

2005, yet did not file a motion to compel on or before that

date. Although I subsequently granted plaintiff leave to file

a motion to compel without ruling on the timeliness issue,

plaintiff did not file a motion until July 19, 2005, a day

after the date required by my July 12, 2005 Scheduling Order. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel is

DENIED.

Dated: August 16, 2005

Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\GRATCH\COMPEL.ORD.wpd

Case 3:04-cv-03028-JSW Document 58 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2