Johnson, et. al., v. Shasta County, et. al., No. 2:2014cv01338 - Document 115 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/15/2015 ORDERING the parties to file an appropriate motion to compel compliance with the subpoena and notice it before the undersigned for hearing. It is RECOMM ENDED that the discovery cutoff date of 12/18/2015 be extended for the limited purpose of resolving this matter. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Donati, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson, et. al., v. Shasta County, et. al. Doc. 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY DARRELL JOHNSON, et al., 12 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-1338-KJM-EFB Plaintiffs, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SHASTA COUNTY, et al., Defendants. 16 17 The parties to this action have submitted a stipulation for an order compelling the 18 California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to produce certain information sought by a subpoena. 19 ECF No. 110. The DOJ has not signed the stipulation nor has it submitted any filing informing 20 the court as to its position on the matter. Further, the parties’ stipulation indicates that the 21 California Department of Justice has objected to the production of the information, but has 22 informed the parties that it will comply with a court order requiring production. 23 In light of the objection and the absence of any filing on behalf of the DOJ on the matter, 24 and subject to an approval by the district judge of an extension of the discovery cutoff date, the 25 parties shall file, pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230, an appropriate motion to compel 26 compliance with the subpoena and notice it before the undersigned for hearing. The motion shall 27 be served on the California Attorney General. As required by Local Rule 230(c), the California 28 Attorney General shall file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Further, it is recommended that the discovery cutoff date of December 18, 2015, be extended for the limited purpose of resolving this matter. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 8 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 9 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 DATED: December 15, 2015. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
