Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02429/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02429-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACEY R. PERRON,

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-06-2429 MCE GGH 

vs.

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On October 12, 2007, defendant filed a motion for a protective order to stay

discovery. Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition, and the court determines that one is not

necessary. Hearing on the motion, scheduled for November 1, 2007, is also unnecessary.

Defendant seeks to stay discovery as its presently submitted motion to dismiss or

in the alternative motion for summary judgment is before the district court, and defendant

believes the motion will be decided in its favor. Defendant also requests that this court hold in

abeyance its October 3, 2007 summary order which required defendant to produce certain

discovery. In the alternative, defendant requests that the court modify the current scheduling

order in the case to move the discovery cutoff from November, 2007 to January, 2008. 

Although this court is permitted to hold its own discovery order in abeyance, and

may also stay discovery, to do so would necessitate modification of the current scheduling order

Case 2:06-cv-02429-MCE -GGH Document 46 Filed 10/17/07 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

which sets a discovery deadline of November 14, 2007. Such modification is strictly within the

province of the district court. In fact, defendant, by noticing the instant motion on this court’s

November 1, 2007 calendar, could conceivably obtain the relief sought by the mere noticing of

the motion, and waiting for an order after hearing before producing the discovery at issue. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for a protective order to stay discovery and to hold this

court’s October 3, 2007 order in abeyance, filed October 12, 2007, is denied. Defendant may

seek modification of the scheduling order before the district court.

2. To the extent that defendant has not yet complied with the October 3 order,

rd

defendant shall produce discovery no later than October 30, 2007.

DATED: 10/17/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Perron2429.sty.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-02429-MCE -GGH Document 46 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 2