James v. Sheklanian, et al.

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING Request For Continuance 27 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 1/27/2010. (Motion for Summary Judgment 25 previously set for 2/8/2010 is CONTINUED to 3/1/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (OWW) before Judge Oliver W. Wanger. Pretrial Conference previously set for 3/8/2010 is CONTINUED to 3/22/2010 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (OWW) before Judge Oliver W. Wanger.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 v. SHANT SHEKLANIAN, JASON GUTKNECHT, MICHAEL B. KIME, CITY OF MADERA, and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE Defendants. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is currently set for hearing on February 8, 2010. (Doc. 25.) On January 19, 2010, JOHN JUSTIN JAMES, Plaintiff, 08-CV-01943-OWW-GSA ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (DOC. 27)

Plaintiff, whose opposition was due on January 25, 2010, filed a "motion to continue" the February 8 hearing. (Doc. 27.) Defendants oppose the request for a continuance. (Doc. 28.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), a court "may, for good cause," extend the time for filing papers if the request is made "before the original time ... expires...." Here, Plaintiff's counsel indicates that his private investigator "has been unable to perform his usual and customary duties due to illness since before January 1, 2010," and is not "anticipated to be back to full duty January 26, 2010." (Doc. 25 at 2.) Defendants argue that this does not satisfy the "good cause" standard because Plaintiff has failed to explain why the services of the investigator are necessary given that "the depositions of a number of percipient witnesses have already been taken; and

discovery closed on November 30, 2009." (Doc. 28 at 2.)

Moreover,

Defendants point out that Plaintiff's counsel has been "connected

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to

this

matter

since

the

criminal

prosecution

in

2007,"

and

therefore argue "[t]here is simply no reason why any investigation could not have been adequately performed sooner." But, Plaintiff's counsel is not arguing that his investigator is needed to discover new information. Rather, counsel, who is a

sole practitioner, indicates in his Declaration that the services of his investigator are needed "to locate[] and accumulate

information and evidence relevant to Defendants' Motion," and that in the investigator's absence, counsel has "attempted, in the two weeks available, to locate and accumulate the necessary information without success." (Doc. 27 at 6.) This constitutes good cause.1

No previous extensions have been granted in this case, and the trial date is not until April 20, 2010. accommodate counsel's staffing A short continuance to will not prejudice

problems

defendant in any way.

The hearing on Defendants' motion for The

summary judgment is continued to March 1, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. pretrial conference is reset for March 22, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 9i274f January 27, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Under the circumstances, Defendants' reliance on the Rule 56(f) standard is totally misplaced, as Plaintiff is not requesting additional discovery, only additional time to evaluate and gather existing discovery material with the assistance of his investigator. 2

1