Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA GRENING WOLK,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PHILIP R. GREEN,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5025 BZ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROPOUND

ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY

On September 26, 2007 plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave

to Propound Additional Interrogatories. Plaintiff’s filing

failed to conform to my previous Orders and the Civil Local

Rules regarding the procedure for filing such a motion. As

such, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

In my September 20, 2007 Briefing Order, I admonished the

parties that they must comply with the Civil Local Rules and

my Orders. Nevertheless, plaintiff has failed to comply with

Civil Local Rule 7-2 (requiring, inter alia, that motions be

noticed for hearing on the motion calendar) and my Order

Scheduling Jury Trial and Pretrial Matters, Docket No. 46, at

2 (describing the process by which parties bring discovery

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 81 Filed 09/27/07 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

27

28

2

disputes to the attention of the Court). Plaintiff is

admonished that failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules

and my Orders may result in the issuance of an Order to Show

Cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed. 

Dated: September 27, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\WOLK\Order Denying leave to propound additional

discovery.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 81 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 2