Stringham v. Bick et al

Filing 72

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/6/13 ORDERING that plaintiffs July 12, 2012 motion for summary judgment 58 is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal with the filing of plaintiffs opposition to defendants crossmotion for sum mary judgment. Plaintiff shall renew his motion for summary judgment merely by filing with his opposition only a notice of motion for summary judgment. Thereafter plaintiffs renewed motion for summary judgment will be submitted for findings and recommendations on all the papers on file following the filing of defendants reply in support of their cross- motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs August 27, 2012 motion for protective order 62 is DENIED. Within 14 days from the date of this order defendants shall file and serve a response to plaintiffs September 20, 2012 motion to remove current defense counsel and strike plaintiffs September 12, 2012 deposition 64 .(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

GUY T. STRINGHAM,

11

Plaintiff,

No. 2:09-cv-0286 MCE DAD P

Defendants.

ORDER

12
13
14
15

vs.
J. BICK, et al.,

/

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

17

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No.

18

58). On August 1, 2012, defendants filed a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition

19

to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 59). By order filed August 7, 2012 (Doc.

20

No. 60), defendants were granted until October 15, 2012 in which to file and serve their

21

opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, together with any cross-motion for

22

summary judgment. Defendants subsequently sought and received an additional extension of

23

time for this purpose (see Doc. No. 66), and they filed their opposition and cross-motion for

24

summary judgment on December 21, 2012. (Doc. No. 68). On January 8, 2013, plaintiff filed a

25

motion for a sixty day extension of time to oppose defendants’ cross-motion for summary

26

judgment (Doc. No. 69) and a reply in support of his own motion for summary judgment (Doc.
1

1

No. 70). By order filed January 23, 2013 (Doc. No. 71), plaintiff’s motion for extension of time

2

was granted and plaintiff was directed to place his opposition to defendants’ cross-motion for

3

summary judgment in the mail on or before March 18, 2013.

4

Due to considerations of judicial economy, and good cause appearing, plaintiff’s

5

July 12, 2012 motion for summary judgment will be denied without prejudice to its renewal, as

6

appropriate, by plaintiff with his opposition to defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment.

7

In order to renew the motion, plaintiff shall file only a notice of renewal of motion for summary

8

judgment. He shall not refile any of the documents that he filed with the July 12, 2012 motion.

9

Should plaintiff file such notice of renewal, cross-motions for summary judgment, including

10

plaintiff’s renewed motion, will be submitted for findings and recommendations following the

11

filing of defendants’ reply brief in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment.

12

On August 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for protective order concerning his

13

deposition. (Doc. No. 62.) However, plaintiff’s deposition was completed on September 12,

14

2012. (See Ex. B to Deft.’ Cross-Motion for Summ. J., filed Dec. 21, 2012 (Doc. No. 68-6).

15

Plaintiff’s motion for protective order has been rendered moot and will therefore be denied.

16

On September 20, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to remove defense counsel and to

17

strike his September 12, 2012 deposition. (Doc. No. 64.) Essentially, plaintiff contends that

18

defense counsel improperly reviewed plaintiff’s entire CDCR medical record without his written

19

permission or court authorization and referred to that record throughout his deposition. Good

20

cause appearing, defendants will be directed to respond to plaintiff’s motion.

21

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1. Plaintiff’s July 12, 2012 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 58) is denied

23

without prejudice to its renewal with the filing of plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ cross-

24

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff shall renew his motion for summary judgment merely

25

by filing with his opposition only a notice of motion for summary judgment. Thereafter

26

plaintiff’s renewed motion for summary judgment will be submitted for findings and
2

1

recommendations on all the papers on file following the filing of defendants’ reply in support of

2

their cross-motion for summary judgment.

3
4

2. Plaintiff’s August 27, 2012 motion for protective order (Doc. No. 62) is
denied.

5

3. Within fourteen days from the date of this order defendants shall file and serve

6

a response to plaintiff’s September 20, 2012 motion to remove current defense counsel and strike

7

plaintiff’s September 12, 2012 deposition (Doc. No. 64).

8

DATED: February 6, 2013.

9
10
11
12
13
14

DAD:12
stri09cv0286.o

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3