Emerson v. Foulk, et al.

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 06/24/15 ordering plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 28 is denied without prejudice to renewal. Plaintiff's application for expert opinion 29 is denied. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT EMERSON, 12 No. 2:14-cv-0972 TLN CKD P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 F. FOULK, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking “an extension of time and/or new due dates” in this 18 action. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff does not specify which deadline(s) in the Scheduling Order he 19 seeks to have extended, or for how long. (See ECF No. 25.) Thus the court will deny this motion 20 without prejudice to renewal. 21 Plaintiff also requests the appointment of a private medical expert to evaluate him. (ECF 22 No. 29.) Pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “[i]f scientific, technical, or 23 other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine 24 a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or 25 education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Under 26 Rule 706, the Court may on its own motion, or on the motion of a party appoint an expert witness. 27 Fed. R. Evid. 706(a). However, the court finds that appointment of an expert is not necessary or 28 appropriate at this time. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 28) is denied without prejudice to 3 4 5 renewal; and 2. Plaintiff’s application for expert opinion (ECF No. 29) is denied. Dated: June 24, 2015 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 / emer0972.36 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?