Opinion
No. 2:15-cv-0997 AC PS
02-26-2018
RAJ SINGH and KAREN SINGH a/k/a KIRAN RAWAT, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on plaintiffs' "Request to allow further discovery." ECF No 40. Defendant filed an opposition and exhibits in support of its opposition to plaintiff's motion. ECF Nos. 50, 51. Although the motion was improperly noticed before the court, the undersigned determined no hearing was necessary and plaintiff's motion was submitted on the papers. ECF No. 52.
I. MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiffs' motion, ECF No. 40, seeks to compel expert depositions and contends that defendant failed to comply with the Court's January 25, 2018 order. Plaintiffs assert the "expert discovery deadline is March 15, 2018 [and that] [t]he City is not providing such discovery and any other discovery. The Court ordered the City to provide some documents. Instead, [t]he City provided a non-accessable disk." ECF No. 40 at 2.
A Pretrial Scheduling Order was issued on October 27, 2016. ECF No. 38. The order provided a deadline for expert disclosures no later than December 15, 2017. ECF No. 38 at 3. All parties were required to "disclose in writing, file with the court, and serve upon all other parties, a list containing the name, address and area of expertise of each expert witness they propose to tender at trial" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26. Id.
Upon review of the record, it appears that neither party disclosed experts within the requisite discovery period. The undersigned finds plaintiff's request is untimely and will therefore deny the motion. Moreover, defendant's briefing and exhibits, ECF Nos. 50-51, provides sufficient proof that defendant did produce the documents pursuant to the court order. Defendant initially sent a CD to plaintiffs through certified mail, and subsequently sent the documents contained in the CD in paper format after plaintiff reported having difficulty opening the disk. ECF No. 51, Exhs. C-G. The undersigned finds that the defendant has complied with its January 25, 2018 order.
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to compel, ECF No. 40, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 26, 2018
/s/_________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE