Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Meyers v. County of Sacramento

United States District Court, E.D. California

January 14, 2020

GLEN MEYERS, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. Introduction

         Presently set for hearing on January 22, 2020 is defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 42, 49.)

         On January 8, 2020, plaintiff filed a document styled as a response to the motion for summary judgment, a request to continue his opposition to the motion, a request to stay proceedings, and a request to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff attempted to set a hearing on January 25, 2020, which the court notes at the outset is improper under the Local Rules. (Id.; see also Local Rule 230(b) (stating that a “matter shall be set for hearing . . . not less than twenty-eight (28) days after service and filing of the motion”).)

         II. Relevant Procedural History

         On May 24, 2016, District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. issued a scheduling order that set the close of discovery on May 24, 2017. (ECF No. 3.)

         On March 21, 2018, Judge England issued an order on motion to modify or vacate the scheduling order that extended the close of discovery to March 21, 2019. (ECF No. 19.)

         On June 19, 2018, Judge England granted plaintiff's then-counsel's motion to withdraw as attorney and vacated all pending dates. (ECF No. 23.) The following month, Judge England referred this case to the undersigned for all purposes, exclusive of the pretrial conference and trial. (ECF No. 25.)

         On October 25, 2018, plaintiff was appointed new counsel for the limited purpose of plaintiff's deposition and participating in any settlement conference. (ECF No. 32.)

         On November 27, 2018, the undersigned issued a scheduling order that extended the close of fact discovery to September 6, 2019. (ECF No. 33.) This scheduling order has not been modified and discovery closed four months ago.

         III. Plaintiff's Response to the Summary Judgment Motion

         In his response to the summary judgment motion, plaintiff avers that he is on home arrest with an ankle monitor and is only allowed out of his home for two hours a week. (ECF No. 50 at 2.) Plaintiff also claims that “[i]n order to oppose the summary judgment, plaintiff must reopen discovery.” (Id. at 5-6.) In addition to reopening discovery, plaintiff requests to stay this matter until August 2020, which is when he anticipates being released from house arrest. (Id. at 5.)

         In support of his request to reopen discovery, plaintiff included a declaration signed by his former counsel, Dennise Henderson. Henderson states that no discovery had been conducted, there had been no exchange of experts, and “[i]f plaintiff is allowed to continue the summary judgment motion and reopen discovery [she] anticipate[s] that he would be able to present evidence that would be helpful to his case and eventually answer summary judgment.” (ECF No. 50 at 15.)

         IV. Plaintiff's Request to Stay and Request to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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