IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 9, 2012
JIMMY LEE BILLS, PETITIONER,
KEN CLARK, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
By order filed on January 27, 2012, the second evidentiary hearing in this matter was re-set for Wednesday, April 18, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. before the undersigned, pursuant to a request by petitioner's counsel for the hearing to be re-set to accommodate a proposed new expert for petitioner. Petitioner's request for funding of the expert was vacated with directions to counsel to file a modified funding request within seven days; thereafter, petitioner was granted an extension of time to file the modified request.
In a status report regarding the modified funding request, which was filed one day late as counsel for petitioner acknowledges, counsel informs the court that her dogged efforts to secure the services of the proposed new expert have proved fruitless. Petitioner's counsel sets forth steps she has taken since to obtain the expertise she seeks with respect to TABE testing but has as yet not secured an expert for which she might seek funding. Counsel asks for permission to file a further status report or funding request by February 27, 2012.
While the court understands counsel's desire to secure a "rock to crawl under" and has some empathy for the frustrating circumstances she faces, it is past time to fish or cut bait in this case (to mix metaphors). The court hereby grants petitioner's request to file a further status report, but there will be no further re-setting of the date for the upcoming evidentiary hearing. If petitioner is able to locate an expert and any report generated by said expert can be served upon respondent two weeks prior to the scheduled evidentiary hearing, petitioner will be permitted to present the potential expert witness at the hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). The court will also consider a new request for funding. However, no further request to move the evidentiary hearing will be considered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.