Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01235/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01235-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

SUSAN A. PRICE, No. CIV.S-04-1235 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, CORRECTIONAL

TRAINING FACILITY, SOLEDAD,

Defendant.

___________________________/

On December 6, 2005, defendant filed a timely motion for

summary judgment, noticing that motion to be heard on January 6,

2006. On January 3, 2006, defendant filed an amended notice of

motion, continuing the hearing on its motion for summary judgment to

February 17, 2006, apparently as a result of concerns expressed by

plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se in this matter, that she did not

receive defendant’s motion in the mail in a timely fashion. That

same day plaintiff filed a request to continue the hearing on the

summary judgment motion, citing her recent changes of address. In

Case 2:04-cv-01235-GEB -DAD Document 70 Filed 01/26/06 Page 1 of 3
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 Defendant initially noticed its motion for hearing on

January 6, 2006, prior to the law and motion cut-off date, and it is

therefore deemed timely. Moreover, the Final Pretrial Conference in

this matter is not until April 3, 2006.

2

response to the parties’ expressed concerns, the courtroom deputy of

the undersigned magistrate judge placed defendant’s motion for

summary judgment on the court’s February 17, 2006, calendar for

hearing.

On January 11, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel

production of documents seeking to compel further compliance document

request plaintiff served upon defendant nearly a year ago. By letter

filed January 19, 2006, defendant objected to plaintiff’s motion to

compel as untimely, pointing out that the last day for discovery in

this case was November 18, 2005.

Defendant’s understanding of the scheduling order in this

case is correct. Under the terms of that order, all discovery was

left open, save and except that it was to be conducted as to be

completed by November 18, 2005. Therefore, plaintiff’s untimely

motion to compel will not be placed on the court’s calendar but

rather is hereby denied as untimely.

While the last day for law and motion under the court’s

scheduling order was January 13, 2006, the defendant’s motion for

summary judgment is hereby confirmed for hearing on February 17,

2006, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom no. 27 before the undersigned.1 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01235-GEB -DAD Document 70 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Finally, plaintiff shall file and serve opposition to the

motion for summary judgment, if any, on or before February 3, 2006. 

See Local Rule 78-230(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 25, 2006.

DAD:th

ddad1\orders.prose\price1235.motions

Case 2:04-cv-01235-GEB -DAD Document 70 Filed 01/26/06 Page 3 of 3