Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00953/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00953-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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 

TIFFANY BAKER; TESSA TODD, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC.; and 

DOES 1-50, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-0953-JAM-EFB 

ORDER 

 On February 9, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel defendant to provide responses to 

plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents and to produce for deposition defendant’s Person 

Most Knowledgeable. ECF No. 26. Plaintiffs noticed their motion for hearing on March 2, 2016. 

Id. 

 The assigned district judge previously issued a Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order, which 

provides that all discovery shall be completed by March 4, 2016. ECF No. 15 at 3. The order 

further provides 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.” Id. 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00953-JAM-EFB Document 28 Filed 02/11/16 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

 Plaintiffs noticed their discovery motion for hearing just two days prior to the close of 

discovery. Even if the court were to find that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought—an order 

compelling defendants to produce documents and a witness for deposition—defendant would not 

have sufficient time to comply with such an order. 

 Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiffs’ motion to compel is untimely under the court’s 

scheduling order. Further, any request to modify the scheduling order must be presented to the 

district judge and be supported by a showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 26) is denied without prejudice and 

the March 2, 2016 hearing thereon is vacated. 

 So Ordered. 

DATED: February 10, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00953-JAM-EFB Document 28 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 2