IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 23, 2010
SAM BESS, PLAINTIFF,
MATTHEW CATE, DAVID SHAW, RODERICK HICKMAN, JEANNE WOODFORD, JOHN DOVEY, SCOTT KERNAN, AND MARTIN HOSHINO, DEFENDANTS.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONTINUE SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION AND APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES
The instant matter before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to continue the summary judgment/adjudication hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). Doc. # 183. Plaintiff also requests an order continuing the trial date and related dates. Id. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion. Doc. # 193, 194. Plaintiff filed this case more than two years ago and has engaged in significant discovery. CDCR Defendants have produced over 26,000 documents and OIG Defendants have produced over 15,000 documents in response to Plaintiff's requests.
Plaintiff has taken ten depositions and has subpoenaed various third party documents. Plaintiff knew of all outstanding discovery issues when discovery closed on December 22, 2009 and waited until after he received Defendants' motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication to move to continue. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for his delay in seeking a continuance, nor has he demonstrated that he is likely to gather relevant evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff's last minute attempt to continue the hearing on the motions for summary judgment and the trial is hereby DENIED.
In addition, Plaintiff argues that the Court should grant Plaintiff's motion seeking permission to depose additional Defendants. Doc. # 195 at 6. Plaintiff's motion, however, is not properly before the Court because Plaintiff did not notice the motion for a hearing on the Court's regular law and motion calendar. The Court hereby sets the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for discovery (Doc. # 132) for April 7, 2010 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM). Responsive pleadings shall be filed in accordance with the Local Rules. Plaintiff's request to shorten time for hearing on his motion for leave to take additional depositions has already been denied by this Court at Docket #146 and is not properly renewed by Plaintiff's reply brief (Doc. #195 at 6) in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.