UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 31, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Nita L. Stormes U.S. Magistrate Judge United States District Court
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES [Docket No. 13.]
On August 12, 2011, the Court issued a Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and other Pre- Trial Proceedings. [Docket No. 12.] On January 27, 2012, the parties filed the Joint Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline and for Extensions of Other Relevant Deadlines [Docket No. 13.]
currently before the Court. The parties seek to extend by 90 days all deadlines except the October 12, 2001 deadline to amend the pleadings. The Joint Motion states:
The parties have engaged in discovery in that both parties have provided to the opposing party that party's initial disclosures and submitted requests/demands.
The parties have either responded to or [sic]in the process of responding to those requests/demands. However, neither party reasonably anticipates that the discovery process will be completed on or before February 24, 2012, despite both parties' best efforts.
Counsel for Plaintiff also acknowledges that the primary reason for some of the delays has been Plaintiff and counsel for Plaintiff's recent injuries and illnesses.
Counsel for Plaintiff also acknowledges that the injuries and illnesses have contributed significantly to Plaintiff's inability to respond to all of Defendant's requests/demands.
The other complication is that Plaintiff continues to be treated medically for the injuries at issue in the case.
[Motion at 3.] The parties provide no other information as to the actual efforts to complete discovery;
how Plaintiff or his counsel's injuries have impeded prosecution of this case; or whether Plaintiff's counsel will be able to prosecute this case if given the requested 90 day extension.
Based on the scant showing provided, the Court is without sufficient information to grant the joint motion. The parties are free to renew the Joint Motion, if they can provide sufficient information to: 1) explain the efforts both sides have made to comply with the existing deadlines; 2) justify the extension sought; and 3) explain whether any illness or injury will prevent Plaintiff's counsel from meeting the new deadlines sought. Plaintiff's counsel may file a declaration under seal in order to protect his privacy and keep any medical conditions confidential.
Accordingly, and Good Cause Not Appearing, It Is hereby Ordered that the Joint Motion to
Extend Deadlines is Denied Without Prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.