Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00131/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00131-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alexander A. Davis, M.D.
Plaintiff
New York Life Insurance Company
Defendant

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXANDER A. DAVIS, M.D., an 

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-0131 TLN DB

ORDER

On May 24, 2024, defendant filed a motion to compel plaintiff’s responses to 

interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production. The motion is noticed for 

hearing before the undersigned on June 14, 2024, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 

37.) On June 5, 2024, defense counsel filed a motion for remote appearance at the June 14, 2024 

hearing. (ECF No. 42.) 

However, the deadline for the completion of fact discovery is June 16, 2024. (ECF No. 39 

at 1.) As explained by the assigned District Judge “‘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.” (ECF No. 34 at 2.) There is not sufficient time 

Case 2:24-cv-00131-TLN-SCR Document 44 Filed 06/10/24 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

between June 14, 2024—the hearing of the motion to compel—and the June 16, 2024, deadline 

for the completion of fact discovery. Defendant’s motion to compel will, therefore, be denied 

without prejudice to renewal in the event the discovery deadline is extended.1 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s May 24, 2024 motion to compel (ECF No. 37) is denied without prejudice 

to renewal;

2. The June 14, 2024 hearing is vacated; and

3. Defendant’s June 5, 2024 request for telephonic appearance (ECF No. 42) is denied as 

having been rendered moot.

Dated: June 10, 2024

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.civil/davis0131.mtc.den.untimely.ord

1 On May 28, 2024, plaintiff filed an ex parte application to amend the scheduling order. (ECF 

No. 39.) On May 30, 2024, the assigned District Judge denied the ex parte application, directing 

plaintiff to file a properly noticed motion if seeking to modify the scheduling order. (ECF No. 

40.)

Case 2:24-cv-00131-TLN-SCR Document 44 Filed 06/10/24 Page 2 of 2