Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01359/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01359-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID E. MCMILLAN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEWIS-GOETZ AND COMPANY, INC., 

et al. ,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1359-TLN-KJN

ORDER

Presently pending before the court is defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order to 

extend the time for supplemental/rebuttal designation of expert witnesses, and to compel a mental 

examination of plaintiff. (ECF No. 41.) For the reasons discussed below, the court DENIES the 

motion without prejudice.

As an initial matter, the motion was filed with insufficient notice. Defendants filed the 

motion on February 16, 2016, and noticed it for hearing on March 3, 2016.1 Thus, under either 

Local Rule 251 (generally requiring 21 days’ notice for discovery motions) or Local Rule 230 

(generally requiring 28 days’ notice for other civil motions), the motion was defectively noticed. 

However, even if defendants had filed the motion with sufficient notice, there are other 

 

1

The motion was noticed for hearing at 9:00 a.m. The court regularly hears civil matters on 

Thursdays at 10:00 a.m.

Case 2:14-cv-01359-TLN-KJN Document 42 Filed 02/17/16 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

fundamental problems with the motion. 

First, to the extent that defendants seek modification of the scheduling order to extend the 

time for supplemental/rebuttal designation of expert witnesses, such relief should be sought from 

the district judge who issued the scheduling order.

Second, to the extent that defendants seek to compel a mental examination, the court notes 

that the discovery completion deadline of November 30, 2015 has already passed. (See ECF No. 

28.) The district judge’s scheduling order specifically defines “completed” as meaning that “all 

discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes 

relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where 

discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed.” (ECF No. 24 at 2.) Therefore, if 

defendants wish to have a discovery motion heard, they must first obtain modification of the 

scheduling order to extend the discovery completion deadline from the district judge who issued 

the scheduling order.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion (ECF No. 41) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 17, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-01359-TLN-KJN Document 42 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 2