King v. Holland et al

Filing 58

ORDER Granting Defendants' Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 09/11/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RASHAD KING, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:15-cv-01885-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL S. HOLLAND, et al., (ECF No. 55) Defendants. OPPOSITION DUE ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 6, 2017 16 17 18 Plaintiff Rashad King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds 20 on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Duncan, Holland, and Tingley. 21 On August 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling discovery. (ECF No. 22 53.) Defendants’ oppositions or statements of non-opposition, if any, were due on September 7, 23 2017. Local Rule 230(l). 24 On September 1, 2017, Defendants filed an ex parte application for a thirty-day 25 enlargement of time to file their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, up to and including 26 October 6, 2017. Defendants also filed a declaration of counsel in support of the ex parte 27 application. Although Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond to Defendants’ request, the 28 Court finds a response unnecessary. Local Rule 230(l). 1 1 The declaration in support of Defendants’ application explains that Plaintiff’s motion does 2 not identify which discovery responses he is seeking to compel, and appears to seek documents 3 that were not responsive to his discovery requests. Counsel also explains that she has been 4 preparing filings in various cases since the motion was filed, and is therefore unable to timely 5 complete the opposition. (ECF No. 55.) 6 Having considered the ex parte application, the Court finds good cause to modify the 7 briefing schedule in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The Court further finds that Plaintiff will 8 not be prejudiced by the brief extension requested here. 9 Accordingly, Defendants’ ex parte application for an extension of time, (ECF No. 55), is 10 GRANTED. Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel is due no later than October 11 6, 2017. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara September 11, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?