UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Beverly Englund, Plaintiff, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Defendant No. CIVS04-0282 LKK JFM United States District Court, E.D. California May 26, 2006 Counsel Brian Taugher, Wendy M. Motooka, Law Offices of Brian Taugher, Catherine J. Cerna, United States Attorney's Office, Sacramento, CA, Jennifer A. Teaford, Robert Charles Holtzapple, Farella Braun and Martel LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff. Rebecca A. Hull, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP, Billie Desiree Hausburg, Elwood Lui, Martha Boersch, Peter E. Davids, Jones Day, Denise M. Trani-Morris, Sedgwick Detert Moran and Arnold, San Francisco, CA, Erik K. Swanholt, Jones Day, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant. Mueller, Kimberly J., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Various motions to compel discovery came on regularly for hearing May 25, 2006. Robert C. Holtzapple and Brian Taugher appeared for plaintiff. Martha Boersch, Kevin Dorse and Billie D. Hausburg appeared for defendant. Upon review of the motions and the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing therefor, the court FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Initially the court notes that two motions were noticed for hearing on today's calendar but were not included in the joint statements filed pursuant to Local Rule 37-251: plaintiff's motion to compel requests for production, set no three (docket no. 133) and defendant's motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, set no. six (docket no. 138). Accordingly, the court will drop those motions from calendar. With regard to defendant's motion to compel production of plaintiff's disclosure statements, plaintiff shall submit the two statements with their exhibits for in camera review by close of business tomorrow, Friday, May 26, 2006. The parties' motion to extend the discovery cut-off is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is not well taken and will be denied. Plaintiff's motions to compel further responses to requests for production, sets one, four and five will be granted. Defendant shall produce all further documents and/or electronic discovery responsive to these requests by close of business June 1, 2006. In addition, defendant shall certify, in writing, that it has performed a diligent search, including of its electronic files, to locate documents responsive to plaintiff's document requests. Said certification shall also be filed by close of business June 1, 2006. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's April 19, 2006 motion to compel responses to interrogatories, set three (Docket No. 133) and defendant's motion to compel responses to first set of interrogatories, six (Docket No. 138) are dropped from calendar. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate motions 133 and 138 from the court's docket. 2. Plaintiff's April 26, 2006 motion to compel responses to request for production, set one (Docket No. 140), plaintiff's motion to compel responses to requests for production, set four (Docket No. 135), and plaintiff's motion to compel responses to requests for production, set five (Docket No. 132) are granted. Defendant shall complete a diligent search of all documents subject to its control, including electronic documents, and shall produce all documents responsive to these requests, including electronic documents, by the close of business June 1, 2006. 3. By close of business June 1, 2006, defendant shall file its certification that it has performed a diligent search, including of its electronic files, to locate documents responsive to plaintiff's document requests. 4. The parties' motion to extend the discovery cut-off is denied without prejudice. *2 5. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is denied. 6. By the close of business tomorrow, Friday, May 26, 2006 plaintiff shall submit complete copies of the two disclosure statements required by the False Claims Act to the court for in camera review.