Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00506/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00506-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIEU THI TRUONG et al., 

Plaintiffs, No. 2:10-cv-0506 MCE KJN

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF DEPARTMENT et al. ,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to compel depositions of various

non-expert witnesses and to expand discovery, noticed for hearing on October 18, 2012. (Dkt.

No. 47.)

The undersigned notes that the district judge, in his July 24, 2012 amended

pretrial scheduling order, had ordered all non-expert discovery to be completed by September 28,

2012. (Dkt. No. 46 at 2.) According to the amended pretrial scheduling order, “completed”

means that “all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and

any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and,

where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed.” (Id.) 

Even assuming arguendo that plaintiffs’ motion has merit, the undersigned cannot

presently grant the relief requested, because it would be inconsistent with the current non-expert

1

Case 2:10-cv-00506-ODW Document 50 Filed 09/21/12 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

discovery deadline set by the district judge. Furthermore, the amended pre-trial scheduling order

may not be modified without leave of the district judge upon a showing of good cause. (See Dkt.

No. 46 at 12.) Thus, before the undersigned can entertain a motion to compel these depositions,

plaintiffs must first seek leave from the district judge to modify the pre-trial scheduling order and

extend the deadline for non-expert discovery. 

Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The October 18, 2012 hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to compel is VACATED.

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (dkt. no. 47) is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

DATED: September 21, 2012

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:10-cv-00506-ODW Document 50 Filed 09/21/12 Page 2 of 2