Puckett

Puckett v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 1, 20242:22-cv-00350California1,981 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 JEREMY PHILLIP PUCKETT, No. 2:22-cv-0350 KJM DB Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. 17 On December 8, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion to compel and noticed if for hearing before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 56.) On March 20, 2024, the undersigned issued an order sanctioning defense counsel $500 for refusing to meet and confer with respect to a separate motion to compel because that conduct violates both the Local Rules and the undersigned’s Standard Information. (ECF No. 119.) On March 22, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Statement re Discovery Dispute pursuant to Local Rule 251 in connection with plaintiff’s motion to compel filed on December 8, 2023. (ECF No. 128.) The Joint Statement reflected that defendants provided plaintiff with amended responses “at 7:08 p.m. the evening before [the] Joint Statement was due.” (Id. at 6.) On March 26, 2024, the…

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.