IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 26, 2009
ANDREW A. CEJAS, PLAINTIFF,
LOU BLANAS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the court is plaintiff's May 22, 2009, motion to continue defendants' summary judgment motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). For the following reasons, this motion is denied.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) provides, If a party opposing the [summary judgment] motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may,
1) deny the motion;
2) obtain a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained, depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be undertaken; or
3) issue any other just order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
In his motion, plaintiff states that key potential affiants are unavailable and that he needs to obtain additional documentation such as the Sheriff's Operational Manual and several pages missing from his copy of his deposition. Plaintiff also states that he needs to conduct additional discovery and file motions to compel.
Pursuant to the June 30, 2008, scheduling order, discovery closed on November 7, 2008. Plaintiff has not shown why he was unable to complete discovery before that date. Accordingly, the motion is denied to the extent plaintiff seeks to conduct additional discovery.
In addition, plaintiff does not identify the "key potential affiants" nor does he discuss why he was unable to obtain their declarations earlier. Plaintiff also does not discuss why he could not obtain the Sheriff's Operational Manual or the missing pages of his deposition earlier.
For the reasons discussed above, the court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to grant his motion. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
On May 22, 2009, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' summary judgment, despite having filed the motion for continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f). On May 28, 2009, defendants filed a reply to plaintiff's opposition. Accordingly, the court finds that defendants' summary judgment motion is submitted for decision.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's May 22, 2009, motion for an extension of time/continuance (no. 80) is denied;
2. Defendants' summary judgment motion (no. 76) is submitted for decision.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.