Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01216/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01216-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

TASHA SCOTT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1216 LKK EFB

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND

SERVICES DEPARTMENT, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

On October 10, 2007, defendants filed a proposed order for the district judge to approve a

“unilateral discovery plan.” Submitted with the proposed order was a letter requesting that the

judge approve the plan and require plaintiff to produce her Rule 26(a) initial disclosures no later

than October 12, 2007. The proposed order also sought the court to order the performance of

parts of the unilateral proposed discovery plan. In the cover letter accompanying this request,

defense counsel acknowledges that this is an “unusual” request. 

As a scheduling order has already issued in this case, the district judge referred this

request to the undersigned, construing it as a motion to compel discovery. Having reviewed the

scheduling order that issued on August 30, 2006, the court notes that the discovery deadline is

November 28, 2007. The scheduling order further provides that all motions to compel are to be

noticed to be heard before the undersigned no later than October 28, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01216-LKK -EFB Document 36 Filed 10/10/07 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

To the extent defendants seek to compel production of plaintiff’s initial disclosures, the

appropriate remedy is to file a properly noticed motion to compel before the undersigned, not a

request for the court to approve a unilateral discovery plan. The court notes, however, that

pursuant to the requirements of Local Rule 37-251, all such motions must be noticed “at least

twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing” the motion. Accordingly, the time for noticing

such a motion has run. However, defendants are still free to file an appropriate application to

shorten time to hear a motion to compel, or to move the district judge to modify his scheduling

order. See Local Rule 6-144. 

Based on the foregoing, defendants’ request for approval of their unilateral discovery

plan is denied, without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 10, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01216-LKK -EFB Document 36 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 2