Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02938/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02938-11/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 

MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRIAN FITZPATRICK, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-02938 GEB AC PS 

ORDER 

 Following the court’s October 8, 2014 status (pretrial scheduling) conference, the 

undersigned ordered the depositions of the parties to take place between November 15 and 

November 20, 2014, inclusive. ECF No. 73. The order clearly stated that “[t]he parties may 

amend this deposition schedule only by stipulation filed with the court.” Id. (emphasis added). 

 On November 12, 2014, plaintiff filed a “request for postponement of court ordered 

depositions and motion to compel production of requested discovery materials.” ECF No. 75. 

With regard to the scheduled depositions, plaintiff seeks postponement of the depositions 

until discovery has been exchanged between the parties. ECF No. 75 at 6. Because plaintiff 

failed to obtain defendants’ consent and submit the request by stipulation, the request is DENIED. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:12-cv-02938-GEB-AC Document 76 Filed 11/13/14 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

 Plaintiff also moves the court to compel defendants’ responses to discovery requests. As 

explained in the court’s November 7, 2014 order, 

Motions to compel discovery are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) 

and Local Rule 251. The moving party must file a motion that 

functions to notify the court of the dispute and place the matter on 

calendar, but that does not include Points and Authorities 

(argument). 

ECF No. 74 at 1–2; See L.R. 251(c). Local Rule 251(a) provides that “a hearing of a motion 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37 . . . may be had by the filing and service of a notice of 

motion and motion scheduling the hearing date on the appropriate calendar at least twenty-one 

(21) days from the date of filing and service.” Plaintiff’s motion to compel is defective for two 

reasons. First, plaintiff’s motion includes argument in support of the motion to compel, in 

violation of Local Rule 251(c). Second, plaintiff fails to include a notice setting a hearing date at 

least twenty-one days from the date of filing and service, in violation of Local Rule 251(a). For 

these reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff is cautioned that any future 

motions to compel must be in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

Local Rules. 

 In light of the time-sensitive nature of this order, plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant 

without electronic filing privileges, plaintiff’s present location outside of the country, and 

plaintiff’s regular use of email, counsel for defendant is directed to forward a copy of this order 

forthwith to plaintiff at the email address (or addresses) from which plaintiff has communicated 

in the past. Further, plaintiff is directed to Local Rule 133(b)(3), which provides for a pro se 

party to seek permission to utilize the court’s electronic filing system. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 13, 2014 

Case 2:12-cv-02938-GEB-AC Document 76 Filed 11/13/14 Page 2 of 2