Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00328/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00328-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
I. Barrimond
Defendant
J. Capriola
Defendant
City Of Fresno
Defendant
Zella Maye Freeman
Plaintiff
R. Garrison
Defendant
J. Hollins
Defendant
R. Perez
Defendant
A. Simonson
Defendant
Mark A. Yee
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZELLA MAYE FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF FRESNO, R. GARRISON

(F.P.D. Badge No. 780), MARK

A. YEE (F.P.D. Badge No. 692),

J. CAPRIOLA (F.S.O. Badge No.

7622), I. BARRIMOND (F.S.O.

Badge No. 1153), J. HOLLINS

(F.S.O. Badge No. 2346), R.

PEREZ (F.S.O. Badge No. 6169),

A. SIMONSON (F.S.O. Badge No.

9364), et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00328-OWW-SMS

ORDER VACATING PLAINTIFF’S

NOTICED MOTION TO COMPEL

(Docs. 49, 73)

Plaintiff’s Re-Notice of Hearing on Motion to Compel Re:

Departmental Transfer, hand filed on September 11, 2006 (Doc.

73), is hereby ORDERED VACATED and OFF CALENDAR, without

prejudice, for the following reasons:

1. Pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules and, specifically

Local Rule 5-133(a), effective January 3, 2005, available on the

court’s web site, “...attorneys shall file all documents

electronically...” (Emphasis added) Despite the fact counsel

Case 1:05-cv-00328-OWW -SMS Document 74 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 3
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

apparently served the re-noticed motion by facsimile, it was not

actually hand filed with the court until September 11, 2006. The

hearing date set by counsel, then, would be one (1) week too

early pursuant to Local Rule 78-230, even regardless of the

following;

2. Instead of setting an order to show cause (OSC) hearing

regarding plaintiff’s counsel’s disregard for the requirement to

utilize electronic filing, the Court is deeming this motion OFF

CALENDAR without prejudice to appropriately re-noticing it after

ruling(s) on the motion for summary judgment, currently set to be

heard before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger on October 23, 2006;

3. Inasmuch as the parties stipulated to an extended date

of September 18, 2006, by which plaintiff’s opposition to

defendant’s motion for summary judgment was due to be filed, the

motion to compel will not only draw off the resources of all

counsel from preparation for the summary judgment motion but also

may be rendered moot by the rulings of the Court; and,

4. Finally, this Court finds that the delay in getting

this motion appropriately before the court in sufficient time for

ruling before the summary judgment motion was due entirely to

plaintiff’s counsel’s error in originally filing and setting the

motion before the Honorable Oliver Wanger rather than the

undersigned magistrate judge assigned to the case and charged

with the task of ruling upon any and all non-dispositive

discovery matters. By Minute Order of July 31, 2006 (Doc. 58),

plaintiff’s motion to compel was vacated with the admonition that

the matter be properly noticed before Magistrate Judge Snyder. 

The motion was not re-noticed for six (6) weeks.

Case 1:05-cv-00328-OWW -SMS Document 74 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Note: If plaintiff’s counsel does re-file the motion, this

Court is not, by virtue of this order, ruling on the timeliness

of said motion nor is it to be implied that the Court is granting

plaintiff permission to file the motion beyond the cut-off

deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00328-OWW -SMS Document 74 Filed 09/15/06 Page 3 of 3