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