Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01405-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

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

 The pretrial scheduling order provided that: 

[a]ll discovery shall be completed by April 7, 2006. In this context, “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 complied with.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE NEWLAND AND JENNE

NEWLAND,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-05-1405 RRB EFB

vs.

THE PROGRESSIVE 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

On April 1, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to quash and for a protective order to preclude

production of documents by third parties subpoenaed by defendants. Based on the notice of

motion, plaintiffs bring this motion “on the grounds that discovery in this matter is closed.” 

The fact that discovery is closed precludes this court from entertaining the plaintiffs’

discovery motion. The docket reveals that discovery in this case closed on April 7, 2006.1

 See

Docket entry no. 10. On September 19, 2007, the district judge modified the scheduling order to

Case 2:05-cv-01405-JAM-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/04/08 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

2

reopen discovery for the purpose of taking plaintiffs’ depositions and the depositions of their

experts. Discovery was not reopened as to any other matter. 

Accordingly, if the parties wish to bring a discovery motion, they must petition the

district judge for another order modifying the pretrial scheduling order. Until that time, this

court cannot hear plaintiffs’ discovery motion. Thus, plaintiffs’ April 1, 2008, motion is denied

without prejudice, and the May 7, 2008, hearing thereon is vacated. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 3, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-01405-JAM-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 2