Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mitchell v. Adams

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 30, 2009

ROBERT MITCHELL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
D.G. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

In the scheduling order, filed on 3/20/08, the discovery deadline was set at 8/1/08, and the pretrial dispositive motion cut-off was 2/06/09. On 7/25/08, the court granted defendants' request for an extension of time to take plaintiff's deposition and file a motion for document production within thirty days of resolution of plaintiff's motion to compel. By order, filed on 2/10/09, the undersigned granted defendants' request for an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment within 60 days of taking plaintiff's deposition.

By order, filed on 3/06/09, this court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's then-pending motions to compel discovery, directing defendants to provide proof of service of certain discovery within 20 days. Therefore, defendants have until 4/05/09 to take plaintiff's deposition and to file a motion to compel document production, and until 6/04/09 to file a motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff has now requested an extension of time to file an opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment and to conduct further discovery. Of course, there is no summary judgment pending at this time, so a request for an extension of time to oppose it is premature. As for an extension of time for plaintiff to conduct further discovery, this request will be denied. If plaintiff felt the need to conduct further discovery beyond the deadline set forth in the scheduling order, he could have sought to do so at that time, while his motions to compel discovery were pending. Plaintiff has simply not provided an adequate basis for the court to extend the discovery deadline any further. However, plaintiff will be permitted the same extended deadline as defendants have, until 4/05/09, to file any further motion to compel discovery if plaintiff takes issue with the adequacy of defendants' responses to previously served discovery requests that he did not address in the two motions to compel that have been recently adjudicated.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's 3/17/09 (# 61) request for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied as premature and the request for an extension of time to conduct further discovery is denied.

20090330

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.