Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02944/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02944-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

ESTATE OF SHERRYN HAYNES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2944 MCE EFB 

vs.

R.H. DYCK, INC., a California 

corporation doing business as “R.H. 

DYCK, INC.,” et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

On March 11, 2008, defendants filed a motion to compel discovery, setting the matter for

hearing on April 1, 2008. On March 12, 2008, they filed an amended notice, setting the matter

for hearing on April 16, 2008. 

The district judge’s pretrial scheduling order sets the discovery deadline as April 14,

2008. That order specifies that all discovery shall be completed by that date, and that

“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.” Based on the

district judge’s pretrial scheduling order, defendants’ motion must be denied without prejudice

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-02944-MCE -EFB Document 70 Filed 04/01/08 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

1

 Upon review of the docket, it appears that plaintiff has a pending motion to modify the

pretrial scheduling order. Thus, if that motion is granted and the discovery period expanded,

defendants may re-notice their motion on the undersigned’s calendar. 

2

as untimely.1

 Accordingly, the April 16, 2008, hearing is vacated and defendants’ motion is

denied without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 1, 2008. 

Case 2:06-cv-02944-MCE -EFB Document 70 Filed 04/01/08 Page 2 of 2