From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weaver v. City of Stockton

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 27, 2021
2:20-cv-00990-JAM-JDP (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-cv-00990-JAM-JDP

12-27-2021

JAMES WEAVER, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF STOCKTON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE ECF NO. 29

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ECF No. 30

JEREMY D. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On December 22, 2021, defendants filed a motion for sanctions and set it for a hearing, ECF No. 29. Defendants did not follow my procedures for discovery motions, which require parties to obtain the court's permission to file such motions. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice, and the hearing is vacated.

Civil Procedures to be followed in cases assigned to Hon. Jeremy D. Peterson are available on the court website at https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Procedures%20for%20Civil%20Proceedings %20Before%20JDP%2062321.pdf.

On December 25, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for extension of time to designate responsive experts. ECF No. 30. For good cause shown, plaintiffs' motion is granted. Plaintiffs will have until January 16, 2022 to designate their responsive experts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Weaver v. City of Stockton

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 27, 2021
2:20-cv-00990-JAM-JDP (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2021)
Case details for

Weaver v. City of Stockton

Case Details

Full title:JAMES WEAVER, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Dec 27, 2021

Citations

2:20-cv-00990-JAM-JDP (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2021)