Opinion
3:11-CV-0010-ECR (VPC)
01-15-2013
ROBERT BLUE, Plaintiff, v. HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al., Defendants.
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTES OF THE COURT
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEPUTY CLERK: LISA MANN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Plaintiff filed a motion for order directing defendants' to respond to interrogatories and/or order extending discovery (#84). Defendants opposed the motion (#86), and no reply was filed.
Plaintiff's motion (#84) is DENIED. Discovery was previously extended in this case to December 14, 2012 (#77). Yet plaintiff failed to timely serve his discovery requests and failed to meet and confer with opposing counsel before filing his discovery motion as required pursuant to Local Rule 26-7(b). Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment (#89) and granting an extension of discovery would be prejudicial to the defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By: _______________
Deputy Clerk