Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02284/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02284-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence

---

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

ERICA AVILA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DANIEL MACIEJEWSKI, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2284 TLN CKD (TEMP)

ORDER

On November 30, 2015, defendants Daniel Maciejewski and Savage Logistics, LLC, filed 

an ex parte application for an order compelling the depositions of Erik Simonsen, Aaron LeGasse

and North Coast Fabricators’ Rule 30(b)(6) designee[s] prior to the December 3, 2015 discovery 

deadline in this action. (Dkt. No. 28.) There is not sufficient time for the undersigned to consider 

and grant defendants’ request prior to the December 3, 2015 deadline.

However, on November 19, 2015, defendants filed a motion to compel these same 

depositions. (Dkt. No. 23.) The assigned District Judge referred all the contents of that motion 

“including discovery deadlines that may influence the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order,” to the 

undersigned. (Dkt. No. 24.) Defendants’ motion is currently noticed for hearing before the 

undersigned on December 23, 2015. (Dkt. No. 25.) Moreover, on November 24, 2015, the 

parties filed a stipulation for “a limited extension of fact discovery” to allow the parties to “hold 

the depositions of Aaron LaGasse, Eric Simonsen and the four ‘persons most knowledgeable ...’” 

Case 2:14-cv-02284-TLN-DB Document 29 Filed 12/02/15 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

(Dkt. No. 26 at 3.)

In this regard, although there is not sufficient time for the undersigned to consider 

defendants’ ex parte request, the undersigned is authorized to hear defendants’ motion to compel 

and consider reopening discovery, if appropriate, to allow for the depositions at issue. Moreover, 

it appears that the parties’ stipulation, currently under consideration by the assigned District 

Judge, may resolve their dispute. 

Accordingly, IS IT HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ November 30, 2015 ex parte 

application (Dkt. No. 28) is denied.

Dated: December 2, 2015

BVD/avila2284.exparte.den.ord.docx

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02284-TLN-DB Document 29 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 2