Fonseca v. City of Red Bluff
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 4/15/11 DENYING 14 Ex Parte Application filed by Judith Fonseca for an order continuing the hearing on defendants' motion to compel. (Matson, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JUDITH FONSECA,
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. CIV S-10-2685-MCE-CMK
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
CITY OF RED BLUFF, et al.,
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action.
18
Pending before the court is plaintiff’s ex parte application (Doc. 14) for an order continuing the
19
hearing on defendants’ motion to compel, currently set for May 5, 2011.
20
Plaintiff cites two reasons for granting a continuance. First, plaintiff argues that
21
she was never served with the discovery requests as to which defendants seek an order
22
compelling responses. The court observes that this is an argument better made in the context of
23
opposing defendants’ motion rather than in the context of a request for a continuance. Moreover,
24
even assuming that plaintiff is correct, the court does not see how this fact would present good
25
cause for a continuance. As a second reason for a continuance, plaintiff cites her counsel’s
26
motion to withdraw, set for hearing on May 19, 2011, arguing that the motion to compel should
1
1
be heard after the motion to withdraw is decided. Again, the court does not see how this
2
establishes good cause for a continuance. Whether counsel is permitted to withdraw is an issue
3
entirely separate from whether defendants’ motion to compel should be heard as noticed or
4
continued.
5
6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 14) for an
ex parte order continuing the hearing on defendants’ motion to compel is denied.
7
8
9
10
DATED: April 15, 2011
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?