United States of America v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Filing
43
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/06/10 ORDERING that plf's 40 Motion to Compel is DENIED w/o prejudice. If the case does not settle, plf may refile the motion for hearing on 06/09/10 as authorized by the district judge's 42 05/06/10 order. (Benson, A.)
<![CDATA[
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 vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendant. / ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1229 LKK EFB
Currently noticed for hearing before the undersigned on May 12, 2010 is plaintiff's motion to compel discovery. Dckt. No. 40. However, on May 5, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order stating that they are still pursuing settlement of this action and that they "wish to avoid the expense of arguing a discovery motion." Dckt. No. 41. Therefore, the parties requested that the district judge extend the discovery deadline and the deadline by which to have the pending motion to compel heard. Id. On May 6, 2010, the district judge approved the stipulation and proposed order and authorized plaintiff to refile its motion to compel to be heard by June 9, 2010. Dckt. No. 42. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel, Dckt. No. 40, is denied without prejudice. If the case //// //// 1
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
does not settle, plaintiff may refile the motion for hearing on June 9, 2010, as authorized by the district judge's May 6, 2010 order. DATED: May 6, 2010.
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
