Driver

Driver v. Pape Kenworth

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 18, 20232:17-cv-01968California440 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROGER DRIVER, 2:17-cv-01968-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. PAPÉ TRUCKS, INC., ET AL., Defendant

17 Plaintiff, Roger Driver, filed this diversity action against defendant Pape Trucks, Inc. for negligence. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant’s motion to reopen expert discovery, filed on June 15, 2023, is presently pending before this court and is set for a hearing on July 25, 2023. (ECF No. 87.) Under Local Rule 230(c), any opposition to this motion was to be filed no later than June 29, 2023. L.R. 230(c). That date has passed, and no opposition was received. However, as the court requires input from the parties on whether to reopen expert discovery, the court hereby orders that all non-moving parties1 inform the court of their position on defendant’s motion 26 27 1 Jomar Investments, Inc (third-party defendant) and Accident Fund Insurance Company of America (plaintiff-in-intervention) are also parties to this case. 1 || within fourteen days…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.