United States District Court, E.D. California
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 ...