From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mack v. City of Sacramento

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 24, 2022
2:18-cv-2863 KJM DB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)

Opinion

2:18-cv-2863 KJM DB

10-24-2022

JASON ALLEN MACK, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

DEBOFAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On September 27, 2022, defendants filed a motion to exclude plaintiff's experts from testifying at trial and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on October 28, 2022, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 37.) Defendants' motion, however, is deficient in several respects.

Specifically, on July 13, 2022, the assigned District Judge issued an order setting July 18, 2022, as the “Fact Discovery Cut-Off,” and October 12, 2022, as the “Expert Discovery Cut-Off.” (ECF No. 36.) In this regard, discovery has closed in this action and defendants' motion is untimely.

The assigned District Judge issued an order that permitted the undersigned to “modify only the discovery dates” in this action. (ECF No. 13 at 6.) Hearing defendants' motion, however, would necessitate a re-opening of discovery, which can only be granted by the assigned District Judge.

Moreover, pursuant to Local Rule 251, motions related to discovery shall consist of a brief notice of motion and motion “scheduling the hearing date[.]” Local Rule 251(a). “No other documents need be filed at this time.” (Id.) If after complying with the meet and confer requirements a dispute remains the parties shall file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement that contains “[a]ll arguments and briefing that would otherwise be included in a memorandum of points and authorities supporting or opposing the motion[.]” Local Rule 251(a)-(c). In this regard, aside from the Joint Statement, “no separate briefing shall be filed.” Here, however, defendants have filed a memorandum of points and authorities and reply, in addition to a Joint Statement. (ECF Nos. 37-1, 40, 41.)

Finally, the relief sought by defendants' motion is an order excluding plaintiff's experts from testifying at trial. (ECF No. 37-8 at 1.) Such a decision is for the assigned District Judge who will proceed over the trial.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's September 27, 2022 motion to exclude (ECF No. 37) is denied without prejudice to renewal; and

2. The October 28, 2022 hearing is vacated.


Summaries of

Mack v. City of Sacramento

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 24, 2022
2:18-cv-2863 KJM DB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)
Case details for

Mack v. City of Sacramento

Case Details

Full title:JASON ALLEN MACK, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 24, 2022

Citations

2:18-cv-2863 KJM DB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)