Opinion
2:08-cv-01305-HDM-RAM.
November 30, 2010
ORDER
The plaintiff has objected to the magistrate judge's orders (#134, #135, #136) denying his discovery requests on the grounds that he failed to meet and confer in compliance with Local Rule 251(b) (#140). While the magistrate judge was correct in concluding that the plaintiff had failed to comply with Local Rule 251(b), the court is mindful that the discovery and scheduling orders issued in the Eastern District of California exempt prisoner cases from the requirement of meeting and conferring under Rule 251(b). See, e.g., Graham v. Runnels, 2010 WL 3835759, at *1 n. 2 (E.D.Cal. 2010); Castillo v. Solano County Jail, 2010 WL 796958, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010); Cardwell v. Kettelhake, 2009 WL 4572878, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2009). While the scheduling order issued in this case did not contain that exemption, the court believes that it is appropriate in this action to adopt the practices of the Eastern District of California exempting the parties in prisoner cases from meeting and conferring under Rule 251(b). Accordingly, the plaintiff's objections are granted (#140), the magistrate judge's orders of October 26, 2010 (#134, #135, #136) are vacated, and the defendants shall have until December 22, 2010, within which to respond to plaintiff's motions (#115, #116, #119, #123) on the merits.
DATED: This 30th day of November, 2010.