Opinion
No. 2:10-cv-02211 MCE KJN
07-25-2012
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FINANCIAL PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Presently before the court are plaintiffs' motions to compel: (1) compliance with two third-party subpoenas (Dkt. No. 19); and (2) further responses to three sets of interrogatories and two sets of document requests (Dkt. No. 20). As to the latter motion, 82 separate discovery requests are at issue, including 58 document requests. Plaintiffs' motions, filed on July 19, 2012, are set to be heard on August 9, 2012.
This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
All discovery in this case must be "completed" by August 14, 2012. (Order, May 25, 2012, Dkt. No. 14.) The term "completed" means that "all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed." (Pretrial Scheduling Order at 2, Dkt. No. 11.)
The discovery completion deadline expires five days after plaintiffs' motions are set to be heard. The undersigned is highly skeptical that, assuming plaintiffs are successful in regards to their motions to compel and the court enters an order the same day as the hearing, the parties and non-parties would be able to comply with any discovery orders in less than five days, which includes two weekend days. Indeed, the undersigned is strongly disinclined to order defendant, and especially non-parties, to comply with subpoenas or 82 discovery requests, including the production of documents, on such a short deadline simply because plaintiffs waited until the end of discovery to file their motions to compel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before August 1, 2012, plaintiffs shall show cause why: (1) they believe that assuming they are successful on their motions to compel, the parties and non-parties could, and should be forced to, comply with a discovery order within three to four business days; and (2) plaintiff should not be compelled to seek further modification of the scheduling order upon a showing of "good cause," see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), prior to their motions to compel being heard by the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE