Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05949/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05949-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

The hearing should have been set before the undersigned.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSCAR RODRIGUEZ, CASE NO. CV-F-03-5949 AWI LJO

Petitioner, ORDER ON DEFENDANT BANK OF

AMERICA’S MOTION TO COMPEL

vs. DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS

(Doc. 152.)

AMERICAN EXPRESS, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

In this action seeking relief from creditors under the Soldiers and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, 50

U.S.C. Appendix §§ 501-593, respondent Bank of America seeks petitioner Oscar Rodriguez’ (“Mr.

Rodriguez’”) further written discovery responses and document production and to impose a sanction on

him. This Court issued its October 28, 2004 scheduling order to set discovery and motion deadlines.

As to nonexpert discovery, the order states: “All nonexpert discovery and related discovery motions

(including motions to compel) shall be completed or heard no later than June 17, 2005.” (Bold in

original and added.) 

On August 8, 2005, Bank of America filed its papers to seek Mr. Rodriguez’ further written

responses to its interrogatories, requests for admission and documents requests and Mr. Rodriguez’

further document production. Bank of America further seeks to impose a $1,710 sanction on Mr.

Rodriguez and incorrectly set a September 12, 2005 hearing for its discovery motions before the district

judge.1 Bank of America’s papers expressly refer to the June 17, 2005 discovery cutoff and in turn, the

Case 1:03-cv-05949-AWI-LJO Document 153 Filed 08/10/05 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

deadline of the same date to hear discovery motions. Bank of America’s papers fail to show this Court

the courtesy to explain which particular discovery items are in dispute and how Mr. Rodriguez’

particular responses are deficient. This Court admonishes Bank of America that this Court is not in a

position to do Bank of America’s work for it.

In short, Bank of America’s motion to compel further discovery and to impose a sanction is

untimely and fails to explain how and why Bank of America is entitled to relief. As such, this Court

DENIES Bank of America’s motion to compel Mr. Rodriguez’ further discovery responses and to

impose a sanction on him. Mr. Rodriguez and the other respondents need not respond to Bank of

America’s motion to compel further discovery and to impose a sanction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05949-AWI-LJO Document 153 Filed 08/10/05 Page 2 of 2