Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02499/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02499-22/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 

JAMES J. MAYFIELD, JAMES 

ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR., and TERRI 

MAYFIELD 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

IVAN OROZCO, SHERIFF SCOTT 

JONES, JAMES LEWIS, RICK 

PATTISON, COUNTY OF 

SACRAMENTO, UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA DAVIS 

HEALTHSYSTEM, DR. GREGORY 

SOKOLOV, DR. ROBERT HALS, and 

Does 1-5, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-02499 JAM AC 

ORDER 

 On October 26, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and noticed it for 

hearing on November 16, 2016. ECF No. 141. The Scheduling Order governing this case 

provides as follows: 

All discovery shall be completed by October 14, 2016. In this 

context, “completed” means that all discovery shall have been 

concluded 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. 

ECF No. 41 at 3. 

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 150 Filed 11/15/16 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

On June 30, 2016, U.S. District Judge Mendez extended the deadline for expert 

depositions to October 26, 2016, and confirmed that “[a]ll other discovery deadlines. . . shall 

remain in effect.” ECF No. 115 at 5. 

The pending discovery motion was not brought in time to be resolved, and any resulting 

orders complied with, by the applicable deadline. The dispute arose in the course of an expert 

deposition taken on October 18, 2016, approximately one week before the extended deadline for 

taking such depositions. The fact that plaintiffs conducted the deposition without time left in the 

discovery period to litigate any disputes does not exempt them from the terms of Judge Mendez’s 

scheduling orders. 

Discovery is now closed. The undersigned will not hear any discovery disputes unless 

and until Judge Mendez has amended the operative Scheduling Order to permit such motions. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF 141, is DENIED without 

prejudice and the matter is VACATED from calendar. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 15, 2016 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 150 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 2