Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02938/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02938-18/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-2938 GEB AC (PS) 

ORDER 

 Pending before the court are the following motions recently filed by plaintiff Michael J. 

Fitzpatrick: (1) Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 102; (2) Motion for Summary Judgment, 

ECF No. 104; and (3) Motion To Compel, ECF No. 105. 

Motion for Protective Order 

 Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Protective Order, requesting relief from a “Notice of 

Deposition Duces Tecum.” ECF No. 102. Plaintiff argues that attending the deposition is 

financially burdensome, apparently because he believes that he would have to travel to California 

from New Jersey. See ECF No. 102 at 2-3. As relief, plaintiff requests that defendant be limited 

to written interrogatories, or in the alternative, that plaintiff be permitted to attend a telephone 

deposition. Id. at 5. 

 Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as unnecessary, as plaintiff is simply objecting to the 

Notice of Deposition. He is free to do so by serving objections on the defendant. At that point, 

Case 2:12-cv-02938-GEB-AC Document 106 Filed 07/01/15 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

the parties can attempt to resolve the matter informally. Normally, if the parties could not resolve 

the matter, the defendant could then file a motion to compel. However, the deadline for filing 

such a motion, June 24, 2015, has already passed. Accordingly, the parties’ only recourse is to 

resolve this matter informally if they can, without court intervention. 

Motion for Summary Judgment 

 Plaintiff has filed a cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 104. (Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment was filed on June 15, 2015. ECF No. 99.) Plaintiff’s crossmotion will be taken under submission (as will defendant’s motion) upon the completion of 

briefing. 

Motion To Compel 

 On June 26, 2015, plaintiff filed a Motion To Compel, seeking the production of certain 

documents. ECF No. 105. As noted, the deadline for filing such motions was June 24, 2015. 

See ECF No. 88 (Amended Scheduling Order). Accordingly, the motion, which in any event, 

does not comply with Local Rule 251, will be denied. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 102) is DENIED; 

 2. Defendant’s opposition, or statement of non-opposition, to plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 104), shall be served and filed no later than July 17, 2015; 

plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be served and filed no later than July 24, 2015; and 

 3. Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel (ECF No. 105), is DENIED. 

DATED: June 30, 2015 

Case 2:12-cv-02938-GEB-AC Document 106 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 2