Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00967/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00967-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL JAMES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0967 GEB DAD

v.

VIVIAN VAUGHT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, currently proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to compel defendants to

comply with an order filed by the undersigned on February 19, 2008. Plaintiff has noticed his

motion for hearing on April 11, 2008.

The discovery completion deadline for this case is March 19, 2008. Order filed

Sept. 18, 2007, at 2. Discovery completion 

means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that . . . any

disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by

appropriate orders, if necessary, and where discovery has been

ordered, the order has been complied with, or alternatively, the

time allowed for such compliance shall have expired.

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order filed Sept. 15, 2006, at 1-2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel

cannot be resolved by appropriate orders and complied with on or before the discovery

completion date of March 19, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00967-GEB-DAD Document 50 Filed 03/19/08 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

The undersigned is aware of plaintiff’s concurrent motion seeking enlargement of

time for discovery and to “quash” defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff

noticed his concurrent motion for hearing before the assigned district judge on April 7, 2008, just

four days before the date set for hearing of the untimely motion to compel. It would have been

impossible for the parties to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 37-251 prior to April

11, 2008, even if the district judge heard plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of discovery on April

7, 2008, and granted it. The scheduling problem is moot, however, as the district judge has

vacated plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of time and to quash, due to plaintiff’s failure to

comply with the notice requirements of the Local Rules.

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 17, 2008 motion to compel (docket #47)

is denied as untimely.

DATED: March 19, 2008.

DAD:kw

Ddad1/orders.civil/james0967.untimelymtc.den

Case 2:06-cv-00967-GEB-DAD Document 50 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 2