Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06619/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06619-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY MURO, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY )

JEFFREY SIMPSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:03-CV-6619-OWW-SMS

ORDER VACATING HEARING SET FOR

MARCH 3, 2006 AND TAKING OFF

CALENDAR WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DEFENDANTS’

PERSONNEL AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS

RECORDS(DOC. 41)

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

On January 31, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel

production of Defendants’ personnel and internal affairs records.

On February 28, 2006, Defendants Fresno County and Fresno County

Sheriff’s Deputy Jeffrey Simpson filed objections and sought the

Court to drop the hearing from the Court’s calendar because no

Joint Statement re: Discovery Disagreements or affidavit as

required by Local Rule 37-251 had been filed, or, in the

alternative, deny the motion without hearing for failure to meet

and confer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). On March 1, 2006,

Defendants City of Fresno, Officer Ray Villavazo, and Officer

Rodney Cancio joined in Defendants’ objections.

Case 1:03-cv-06619-OWW -SMS Document 54 Filed 03/01/06 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

The notice of motion (at 2) and the declaration of Michael

G. Woods demonstrates that Defendants responded to the pertinent

discovery requests, raising numerous objections; however,

Plaintiffs neither contacted Defendants to discuss informal

resolution of the discovery dispute nor prepared a joint

statement regarding the discovery disagreement.

Local Rule 37-251(a) and (e) provides that except where

there has been a complete and total failure to respond to a

discovery request or order, or when the only relief sought by the

motion is the imposition of sanctions, a hearing of a motion

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37, including any motion

to exceed discovery limitations or motion for protective order,

may be had by the filing of a notice of motion and motion

scheduling the hearing date on the appropriate calendar at least

twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing. However, the

hearing may be dropped from calendar without prejudice if

thereafter the joint statement re discovery disputes or an

affidavit as set forth in Rule 37-251(c) is not filed on or

before three (3) court days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

Here, no joint statement has been filed.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that the hearing set for March 3,

2006, on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of personnel and

internal affairs records IS VACATED, and the motion IS TAKEN OFF

CALENDAR without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06619-OWW -SMS Document 54 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 2