Brothers, II v. Buenafe et al

Filing 45

ORDER GRANTING 43 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and ORDER DENYING 40 & 42 Pending Scheduling and Discovery Motions signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 1/14/2020. Opposition to MSJ due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AUBREY LEE BROTHERS, II,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00607-LJO-JDP
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

v.
ECF No. 43
CHITA BUENAFE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PENDING
SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY
MOTIONS
ECF Nos. 40, 42

18
19

Plaintiff moves for an extension of time to respond to defendants’ motion for summary

20

judgment. For good cause shown, plaintiff’s motion is granted. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff shall have

21

thirty days from the date of entry of this order to file his opposition to defendants’ motion.

22

The parties have also filed multiple motions regarding discovery and scheduling but have

23

failed to confer before filing. See Fed R. Civ. P. 37; Local R. 144. It appears that defendants did

24

not have plaintiff’s phone number, see ECF No. 40, but that plaintiff has since provided it, see

25

ECF Nos. 41, 42, 43. Therefore, the parties are directed to discuss whether they can come to an

26

agreement regarding discovery and scheduling. Both parties’ pending motions regarding

27

discovery and scheduling are denied without prejudice. ECF Nos. 40, 42.

28
1

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
Dated:

January 14, 2020

4

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7

No. 204.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2