Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01749/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01749-8/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DESHAWN CATHEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On November 

23, 2015, defendants filed a request to continue the hearing on their motion for summary 

judgment from December 16, 2015, to February 3, 2016. ECF No. 56. Defendants explained that 

counsel, Furah Z. Faruqui, will be leaving the City of Vallejo’s Office on November 30, 2015. 

Id. The City of Vallejo does not expect Ms. Faruqui’s replacement to start until February 1, 2016. 

Id. Accordingly, good cause being shown, the court will grant defendants’ motion to continue the 

hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

The court will also take plaintiff’s November 10, 2015, motion to compel under 

submission and deny it due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s scheduling order and 

Local Rule 251. On March 5, 2015, the court issued its scheduling order in this case, setting a 

discovery deadline of August 31, 2015. ECF No. 13. The court’s order further specified that any 

disputes “relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order [by the discovery 

Case 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC Document 59 Filed 11/30/15 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 

27 

28 

2

cut-off date] if necessary.” Id. On August 28, 2015, defendants filed a motion to continue the 

discovery deadline to September 30, 2015, in order to allow them to depose plaintiff. ECF No. 

42. On August 31, 2015, plaintiff filed his own motion to extend the discovery deadline by 120 

days. ECF No. 43. On September 15, 2015, the court issued an order granting an extension of 

the parties’ discovery deadline to October 30, 2015. ECF No. 44. 

On November 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery responses from 

defendants, noticed for hearing in front of the undersigned on December 2, 2015. ECF No. 50. 

On November 24, 2015, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel arguing 

that it should be denied because, among other things, it is untimely. ECF No. 58. Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel was filed eleven days after the court’s discovery deadline and accordingly, it is 

indeed untimely. If plaintiff wishes to move to compel further discovery responses from 

defendants he must first obtain a continuance of the parties’ discovery deadline. The untimeliness 

of plaintiff’s motion is reason enough to deny it. 

The court will also deny plaintiff’s motion on the additional grounds that he has failed to 

comply with Local Rule 251. Local Rule 251 requires that parties moving to compel discovery 

responses file a joint statement. A moving party is only exempted from the requirement of filing 

a joint statement if (1) there has been a complete and total failure to respond to a discovery 

request, or (2) the only relief sought is the imposition of sanctions. Local Rule 251(e). It is 

undisputed that neither of the foregoing exceptions apply to plaintiff’s motion to compel. At the 

court’s November 18, 2015 hearing, the undersigned specifically warned plaintiff that he was 

required by Local Rule 251 to file a joint statement. Nevertheless, plaintiff has failed to do so. 

Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion to compel because he has failed to comply 

with Local Rule 251’s instructions and the court’s scheduling order. 

In accordance with the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Defendants’ motion to continue, ECF No. 56, is GRANTED; 

2. The court’s hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment is continued to 

February 3, 2016; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 50, is taken under submission and DENIED; 

Case 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC Document 59 Filed 11/30/15 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 

27 

28 

3

and 

4. The court’s December 2, 2015, hearing is VACATED. 

DATED: November 30, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC Document 59 Filed 11/30/15 Page 3 of 3