Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02682/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02682-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MEHL, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-03-2682 MCE KJM

vs.

LOU BLANAS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiffs have filed objections to the court’s minute orders vacating hearings on

plaintiffs’ discovery motion due to untimely notice. Plaintiffs contend there has been no

response to the court’s order directing defendants to produce certain documents and thus twentyone days notice is not required under the local rules. Plaintiffs’ motion, however, demonstrates

the contrary. The documents in dispute were the subject of a motion to reconsider, which was

directed to the district judge. An order on the motion to reconsider was filed March 27, 2007. 

Plaintiffs’ motion confirms that some documents have been produced in response to the order on

the motion to reconsider. Plaintiffs’ motion is directed to documents that plaintiffs contend have

not been produced but asserts should have been under the March 27, 2007 order. The situation

presented by plaintiffs’ motion is the very kind of dispute the local rule governing discovery is

designed to address. There is a dispute about whether all of the documents have been produced,

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE -KJM Document 111 Filed 05/18/07 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

with plaintiffs’ conceding some documents have been produced. Local Rule 37-251 therefore

requires full meet and confer regarding the disputed documents and the filing of a joint

stipulation three days prior to the discovery hearing set with twenty-one days’ notice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ objections to the court’s

minute orders are overruled.

DATED: May 17, 2007.

006

mehl.obj

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE -KJM Document 111 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 2