Forte v. County of Merced et al

Filing 244

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application and RESETTING Hearings on Defendants' MOTIONS. RESET MOTIONS HEARING as to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (was currently under submission) and Motions to Compel Discovery (was set for hearing on 8/29/2014) (Doc. 227, 228) to: September 19, 2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Plaintiff's Opposition to these Motions, if any, shall be filed and served on or b efore September 5, 2014. Defendants' reply briefs shall be filed and served on or before September 12, 2014. The Court will not grant any additional request to continue the hearings on these motions, nor will the Court permit relief from the above briefing schedule, absent a strong showing of good cause. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/4/2014. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

EUGENE E. FORTE,

11
12
13
14

Case No. 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION AND
RESETTING HEARINGS ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF MERCED, et al.,
Defendant.

15
16
/

17
18
19

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Eugene Forte’s Ex Parte Application for an Order to

20

continue the hearings on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motions to Compel Discovery. (Doc.

21

227, 228.) Defendants opposed the motion, and Plaintiff submitted a reply brief on August 4, 2014.

22
23
24
25

(Doc. 235, 239.)
By and large, Plaintiff has not shown good cause to continue the hearings on Defendants’
Motions. As is often the case, the vast majority of Plaintiff’s briefing takes issue with the actions of
opposing counsel and this Court. But Plaintiff does not tether these complaints to any need for a
continuance. Plaintiff also argues there is good cause for a continuance because he is too busy with

26
other legal and personal matters. The Court has already informed Plaintiff this does not constitute
27

good cause to postpone his obligations in this case:

28
1

1
2
3
4
5

Plaintiff has apparently involved himself in a number of cases, and in the process, has
made choices to allocate time and energy to certain matters over others. Plaintiff’s
choice to file “lengthy” motions, status reports and updates in this or other matters does
not absolve him of his responsibility to comply with the deadlines imposed by this
Court.
(Doc. 201, 2: 18-23.)
Nevertheless, considering Plaintiff’s pro se status, the need to accommodate the Court’s

6

calendar, and in the interests of justice, the Court CONTINUES the hearings on Defendants’ Motion

7

to Dismiss and Motions to Compel Discovery. (Doc. 227, 228.)

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 228), currently set for August 29, 2014 is CONTINUED
to September 19, 2014, at 9:00 AM, in Courtroom 8, before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara
A. McAuliffe. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion Compel Discovery (Doc. 227, 228),
currently under submission, are RESET for hearing on September 19, 2014, at 9:00 AM, in Courtroom
8, before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Plaintiff’s Opposition to these
Motions, if any, shall be filed and served on or before September 5, 2014. Defendants’ reply briefs
shall be filed and served on or before September 12, 2014.
The Court will not grant any additional request to continue the hearings on these motions, nor
will the Court permit relief from the above briefing schedule, absent a strong showing of good cause.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 4, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2