From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Giraldes v. Roche

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 1, 2007
No. CIV S-06-2277-MCE-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-2277-MCE-CMK-P.

November 1, 2007


ORDER


Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants' request for an order re-setting the deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C). That rule requires that expert disclosures be made at least 90 days prior to the date set for trial. However, because the court has vacated the trial date and has not set a new trial date in this matter, there is no need for the order sought by defendants. Once a new trial date is set, if at all, following resolution of defendants' motion for summary judgment, expert disclosures will be due by the time specified in the rule.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion for extension of the expert discovery deadline is denied as unnecessary.


Summaries of

Giraldes v. Roche

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 1, 2007
No. CIV S-06-2277-MCE-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007)
Case details for

Giraldes v. Roche

Case Details

Full title:LARRY GIRALDES, Plaintiff, v. ROCHE, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Nov 1, 2007

Citations

No. CIV S-06-2277-MCE-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007)