*1 Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's September 21, 2023, discovery ruling and an ex parte application to extend the discovery deadlines in the case. The Court deems these matters appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.

A district judge “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of [a magistrate judge's pretrial] order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

The magistrate judge granted Plaintiff's motion to compel certain Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. Plaintiff now argues that the magistrate judge clearly erred by declining to set specific dates for the compelled Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and declining to award attorney's fees relating to the underlying motion to compel.

A review of the record indicates that Plaintiff's motion to compel was part of an ongoing contentious discovery process. In the appealed order, the magistrate judge found that both sides’ counsel were partially to blame for the failure of the previous Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. While the Court appreciates that counsel are generally unable to cooperate with each other on what are typically routine matters of litigation, the magistrate judge did not clearly err in leaving the very basic matter of deposition scheduling to counsel rather than acting as the mediator of their respective schedules. The Court further notes that this issue is essentially moot because the depositions have now taken place.[1]

The magistrate judge's finding that the discovery issues are “fairly attributable to all parties” was not clear error, and, therefore, it was not clear error to deny Plaintiff's request for fees.

The City does not object to a continuation of expert discovery deadlines in the case, but did not clearly agree to the dates proposed by Plaintiff. The Court also notes that there are no hearing or briefing dates set for the City's pending motion for summary judgment. Counsel are to confer and present stipulated expert discovery deadlines and summary judgment hearing/briefing dates for the Court's approval. The Court will attempt to rule on Officer Garcia's motion for summary judgment within the next 30 days.

The City does object to an extension of the non-expert discovery deadline. The only apparent justification for an extension of that deadline would be to allow the parties to bring motions to compel discovery already requested prior to the current discovery cutoff. The Court declines to extend the non-expert discovery cutoff, but the magistrate judge is granted authority, at his sole discretion, to entertain motions to compel production of discovery that was requested prior to the cutoff. Any motions are to be filed only after receiving leave of the magistrate judge and are to be presented in whatever manner the magistrate judge prescribes.

*2 The motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order is DENIED. The ex parte application to continue dates is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.