Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06619/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06619-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY MURO, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY )

JEFFREY SIMPSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:03-CV-6619-OWW-SMS

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

EXPERT DISCOVERY OR AMEND THE

SCHEDULING ORDER SET FOR

FEBRUARY 24, 2006 (DOC. 42)

ORDER DEEMING MOTION SUBMITTED

ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 42)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

AND AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

I. Background

On February 8, 2006, Plaintiff Rodney Muro filed a motion to

compel expert discovery, which sought either an order directing

compliance with discovery requests by a certain time or,

alternatively, amendment of the scheduling order to extend the

expert discovery deadline to at least March 8, 2006. Defendants

County of Fresno and Fresno County Sheriff Deputy Jeffrey Simpson

Case 1:03-cv-06619-OWW -SMS Document 49 Filed 02/27/06 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

27

28

2

filed notice of non-opposition on February 15, 2006, agreeing to

extend the discovery deadline and thus permitting the County to

respond to Plaintiffs’ request for production of documents

pertaining to expert witnesses to no later than March 8, 2006,

but objected to any further extensions absent a stipulation of

the parties. On February 21, 2006, Defendants City of Fresno,

Officer Ray Villavazo, and Officer Rodney Cancio filed notice of

non-opposition to an extension of time to permit Defendants to

respond to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents

pertaining to expert witnesses.

II. Hearing is Vacated and Motion Is Deemed Submitted

Pursuant to Rule 78-230(h) of the Local Rules of Practice

for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s motion to compel

discovery or, in the alternative, to amend the scheduling order

is a matter that may appropriately be submitted upon the record.

Accordingly, the hearing on the motion, presently set for

February 24, 2006, IS VACATED, and the motion IS DEEMED SUBMITTED

to the Court for decision.

III. Granting Plaintiff’s Motion

Based on the parties’ non-opposition, Plaintiff’s motion to

amend the scheduling order IS GRANTED.

IV. Amendment of the Scheduling Order

The Court AMENDS the scheduling order as follows:

Expert Discovery Cut-Off March 24, 2006

Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline April 7, 2006

Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline April 28, 2006

Pretrial Hearing July 24, 2006*

Trial September 6, 2006

//

Case 1:03-cv-06619-OWW -SMS Document 49 Filed 02/27/06 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

27

28

3

* The Honorable Oliver W. Wanger is unavailable for pretrial

on July 10, 2006, because he will be attending the Ninth Circuit

Conference on that date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06619-OWW -SMS Document 49 Filed 02/27/06 Page 3 of 3