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)

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