Edwards v. CSP Solano, et al.,

Filing 84

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 4/16/2012 ORDERING that the parties' request for additional time to complete discovery is DENIED; the parties' request for additonal time to file further dispositive motions is DENIED; plaintiff's 82 request for further settlement conference is DENIED; and within 14 days, the parties shall provide the court with two alternate, mutually acceptable trial dates. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID E. EDWARDS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.

ORDER

CSP SOLANO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

No. CIV S-08-0620-CMK-P

/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner now proceeding with counsel, brings this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is

19

before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment.

20

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

21

On January 25, 2012, the court ordered the parties to file a status report indicating

22

whether this case is ready for trial, and if not, why not. The parties filed a joint status report

23

informing the court that this matter is not ready for trial because there is still outstanding

24

discovery to be completed, and that defendants intend to file a motion for summary judgment.

25

They did not, however, provide the court with any reason for the continued delay, why there is

26

still outstanding discovery this far beyond the discovery deadline, or how a second motion for
1

1

summary judgment would resolve the triable issues in this case.

2

The current scheduling order in this matter set a discovery cutoff date of August 9,

3

2010 (Doc. 51). This date was extended once upon request by plaintiff. The order granting

4

plaintiff’s request set a new discovery deadline of October 8, 2010 (Doc. 54). The remainder of

5

the scheduling order was not altered, including the dispositive motion deadline. No further

6

requests to extend the deadlines were filed, and after the deadline for filing dispositive motions

7

had passed without either side filing a motion, the court issued an order for status reports. In

8

their status reports, the parties indicated additional time was needed to file dispositive motions,

9

and defendants had requested additional time to complete discovery. Defendant’s belated request

10

for additional time to complete discovery was denied, but the deadline for filing dispositive

11

motions was granted. The parties were provided an additional 45 days to file their respective

12

motions. Both sides then filed motions for summary judgment. On September 12, 2011, the

13

court issued an order denying the motions for summary judgment (Doc. 69). Plaintiff then filed a

14

motion for reconsideration, which was denied (Doc. 71).

15

To the extent the parties now inform the court that additional discovery remains

16

outstanding, and that new motions for summary judgment are contemplated is not well received.

17

The discovery deadline has not been extended, and discovery is long over. In addition, the

18

deadline for filing dispositive motions has also passed. As stated above, both sides filed motions

19

for summary judgment which were denied. Following the denials, the court even engaged in a

20

settlement conference in an attempt to bring this case to resolution. The parties were unable to

21

resolve their differences during the settlement conference, and the case did not settle. Plaintiff’s

22

supplemental request for a further settlement conference does not provide the court with any

23

basis to find a further settlement conference would be beneficial, especially as the defendants

24

indicate a further settlement conference would not be successful.

25

///

26

///
2

1

The undersigned finds no reason to delay bringing this case to trial. However, the

2

parties failed to provide the court with proposed trial dates. As such, the parties will be required

3

to provide the court with two proposed trial dates that are mutually acceptable. Failure to do so

4

will result in the court setting a trial date without input from counsel.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

The parties’ request for additional time to complete discovery is denied;

7

2.

The parties’ request for additional time to file further dispositive motions

9

3.

Plaintiff’s request for a further settlement conference is denied; and

10

4.

Within 14 days of the date of this order, the parties shall provide the court

8

11

is denied;

with two alternate, mutually acceptable trial dates.

12
13
14
15

DATED: April 16, 2012
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3