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
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?