Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01239/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01239-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Merced
Defendant
Chad Englert
Plaintiff
Ryan Paskin
Plaintiff
Richard Ramirez
Plaintiff
Matthew Van Hagen
Plaintiff
Casey Wilson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAD ENGLERT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MERCED,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01239-NONE-SAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND VACATING 

FEBRUARY 12, 2020 HEARING

(ECF No. 31)

On January 15, 2020, Plaintiffs Chad Englert, Ryan Paskin, Richard Ramirez, Matthew 

Van Hagen, and Casey Wilson filed a notice of motion and motion to compel. (ECF No. 31.) 

On January 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice rescheduling hearing on the motion to February 12, 

2020. (ECF No. 32.) 

Pursuant to the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California (“L.R.”), if the moving 

party is still dissatisfied after meeting and conferring on the discovery disagreement, a joint 

statement is required to be filed. L.R. 251(b)(c). “The hearing [on a discovery disagreement]

may be dropped from the calendar without prejudice if the Joint Statement re Discovery 

Disagreement or an affidavit . . . is not filed at least seven (7) days before the scheduled hearing 

date.” L.R. 251(a). 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:18-cv-01239-DAD-SAB Document 37 Filed 02/07/20 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

Here, the joint statement was due on February 5, 2020 and has not been filed. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is HEREBY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and 

the FEBRUARY 12, 2020 hearing is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01239-DAD-SAB Document 37 Filed 02/07/20 Page 2 of 2