Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01103/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01103-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

DIANNE NELSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1103 DFL KJM PS

vs.

PLACER COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel and to modify the scheduling order and for

protective order regarding plaintiff’s deposition are presently calendared for hearing March 22,

2006. As provided by Local Rule 78-230(h), the court has determined that the matter will be

submitted on the papers without oral argument. Upon review of the motion and the file in this

action, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

 Plaintiff again has moved for appointment of counsel under Local General Order

230. This order requires the court to determine whether: (1) plaintiff’s income is 125 percent or

less of the current poverty threshold established by the Office of Management and Budget of the

United States and is otherwise without resources to obtain counsel; (2) this case is of a type that

attorneys in this district ordinarily do not accept without prepayment of fee; (3) this case is not a

fee generating case within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code § 8030.4(g);

Case 2:04-cv-01103-DFL -KJM Document 132 Filed 03/14/06 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

and (4) this case has sufficient merit to warrant appointment. Upon consideration of these factors

and review of the voluminous pleadings in this action, the court finds appointment of counsel is

not warranted.

Plaintiff requests a further extension of the discovery cut-off. This action was

filed June 9, 2004. A scheduling order duly issued on March 22, 2005 setting a discovery cut-off

of October 5, 2005. The scheduling order was modified based on the request of the parties by

order filed September 23, 2005. The discovery cut-off is presently set for March 22, 2006. 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for further modification of the scheduling order

and plaintiff’s request therefore will be denied.

Plaintiff also seeks a protective order precluding further deposition of herself. 

Plaintiff contends defense counsel unreasonably refused to complete her deposition in one day

and that she is subject to further deposition. Plaintiff does not indicate defendants have

attempted to further depose plaintiff. Absent a showing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

30(d)(2), plaintiff is not subject to further deposition and plaintiff’s request is therefore not ripe. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery cut-off is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for protective order is denied.

DATED: March 13, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

nelson.sub

Case 2:04-cv-01103-DFL -KJM Document 132 Filed 03/14/06 Page 2 of 2