Evans v. California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training et al

Filing 69

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/14/2017 GRANTING 63 Ex Parte Application for an Extension of Time and the 66 Opposition to Motion is DEEMED timely filed. Plaintiff's Reply, if any, shall be filed not later than 8/31/2017. This case shall remain submitted and if the Court subsequently determines oral argument is necessary, it will be scheduled at a later date. Designation of Expert Witnesses is CONTINUED to 9/27/2017. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

TAMARA EVANS,

Case No. 2:15-cv-01951-MCE-DB
Plaintiff, ORDER

v.
CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON PEACE
OFFICERS STANDARDS AND
TRAINING; EDMUND PECINOVSKY;
ANNE BREWER and DOES 1-25,
Defendants.

18
19
20

Presently before the Court is an ex parte request for an extension of time to file a late

21

opposition to the motion for summary judgment by Defendants California Commission on Peace

22

Officer Standards and Training, Edmund Pecinovsky, and Anne Brewer (“Defendants”). Given

23

the candid averments by counsel in her latest submission to the Court as to her shortcomings in

24

handling the briefing of this case, and the Court’s preference for resolving cases such as this one

25

on the merits, the requested relief is, on this showing, GRANTED. The Court notes for the record

26

that it is the most persuaded by the fact that counsel fell on her sword multiple times as to

27

mistakes she admittedly and regrettably made and by her request that her clients not be made to

28

suffer from these transgressions.
1
Order (2:15-cv-01951-MCE-DB)

1

Counsel is nonetheless admonished that this Court’s scheduling orders govern these

2

proceedings and supersede the Local Rules where they differ. The Court will not entertain future

3

requests for extension under circumstances such as these and expects no such requests will be

4

forthcoming.

5

Finally, the Court has also reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Ex

6

Parte Application, by which Plaintiff does not oppose the requested extension of time, but does

7

request additional time to retain an expert witness on the issues subject to the currently unopposed

8

Motion for Summary Judgment. The current deadline for doing so is August 22, 2017, and

9

preparation by this date is not feasible given the delays over the past several weeks. Accordingly,

10
11

it is hereby ordered as follows:
1.

Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for an Extension of Time (ECF No. 63) is

12

GRANTED, and their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

13

filed August 10, 2017, is deemed timely filed.

14

2.

Plaintiff’s Reply, if any, shall be filed not later than August 31, 2017.

15

3.

This case shall remain submitted and if the Court subsequently determines oral

16
17
18
19
20

argument is necessary, it will be scheduled at a later date.
4.

The deadline to designate expert witnesses is hereby CONTINUED to September
27, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 14, 2017

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Order (2:15-cv-01951-MCE-DB)