Pust v. Placerville et al
Filing
23
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 03/29/10 ORDERING that dfts' 21 County of El Dorado, Neves and Robertson's 03/22/10 request for an extension of time to respond to plf's discovery requests is DENIED AS MOOT; dft Alger's 03/24/10 request for an extension of time to respond to plf's discovery requests is DENIED as moot. (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. CITY OF PLACERVILLE et al., Defendants. / On March 22, 2010, defendants County of El Dorado, Jeff Neves and John Robertson filed a stipulation and proposed order for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests (First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents for each defendant). On March 24, 2010, defendant Jason Alger also filed a stipulation and proposed order for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests (First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents). Both requests for an extension of time indicate that the respective parties have already stipulated to a two-week extension. They now seek court approval of the extensions. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34 direct parties who are responding to interrogatories and requests for production of documents, respectively, to respond with "answers and any objections within 30 days after being served." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). "A 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID ALLEN PUST, Plaintiff, No. CIV 2:09-cv-2730-MCE-JFM
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
shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court." Id. Rule 29, in turn, provides that "a stipulation extending the time for any form of discovery must have court approval if it would interfere with the time set for completing discovery, for hearing a motion, or for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b). Here, per the February 3, 2010 pretrial scheduling order, discovery commences on March 30, 2011. Because the parties' stipulations for a two-week extension of time to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests does not interfere with the time set for completing discovery, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b), court approval is unnecessary. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants County of El Dorado, Jeff Neves and John Robertson's March 22, 2010 request for an extension of time to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests is denied as moot; and 2. Defendant Jason Alger's March 24, 2010 request for an extension of time to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests is denied as moot. DATED: March 29, 2010.
/014.pust2730.eot
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?
