From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jamison v. Baillie

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 5, 2015
2:10-cv-124-KJM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2015)

Opinion


JEREMY JAMISON, Plaintiff, v. BAILLIE, et al., Defendants. No. 2:10-cv-124-KJM-EFB P United States District Court, E.D. California. March 5, 2015

          ORDER

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

         On February 10, 2015, defendants filed a notice of motion "to compel compliance with requirements experts disclosures." ECF No. 206. That motion was noticed for hearing on March 11, 2015. Id. Local Rule 251(a) provides that the Joint Statement Re Discovery Disagreement must be filed at least seven days before the scheduled hearing date. E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(a). Local Rule 251(a) also provides that the hearing on a discovery motion may be dropped from calendar without prejudice if the Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement is not timely filed. Id.

         Although the deadline has passed, the docket reveals that no Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement has been filed in connection with defendants' motion to compel. Therefore, that motion, ECF No. 206, is denied without prejudice and the March 11, 2015 hearing thereon is vacated.

         SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jamison v. Baillie

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 5, 2015
2:10-cv-124-KJM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2015)
Case details for

Jamison v. Baillie

Case Details

Full title:JEREMY JAMISON, Plaintiff, v. BAILLIE, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 5, 2015

Citations

2:10-cv-124-KJM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2015)