Baker v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 113

CORRECTED ORDER re 97 MOTION to Continue County Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Eric James Baker. Signed by Judge Laporte on 12/28/09. DISREGARD PRIOR DOCKET ENTRY FILED IN ERROR.(edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 · v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, Defendants. / ERIC JAMES BAKER, Plaintiff, No. 08-03433 EDL CORRECTED ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Pending before this Court are: (1) Plaintiff's motion to compel set for hearing on January 12, 2010; and (2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment set for hearing on January 19, 2010. On December 22, 2009, two days before Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment motion was due, Plaintiff filed an Administrative Motion to continue the briefing schedule for the Motion for Summary Judgment in light of the holidays and the pending Motion to Compel. On December 23, 2009, Defendants filed an opposition to the Administrative Motion. Also on December 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment which references his request for a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f), Local Rules 6-3 and 7-11 but does not substantively respond to any of the issues raised in the Motion for Summary Judgment. Having considered the parties' arguments regarding Plaintiff's Administrative Motion for a continuance, the Court Orders as follows: · · Plaintiff's deadline to file a Reply to his Motion to Compel remains December 29, 2009. The hearing on the Motion to Compel is advanced from Tuesday, January 12, 2010 to Thursday, January 7, 2010. Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment is due Monday, January 11, 2010. The Opposition shall substantively respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment with

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 · · ·

evidence currently available to Plaintiff, and shall also include relevant argument and affidavits supporting any requested Rule 56(f)continuance, taking into account any previous ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Defendant's Reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment is due by Monday, January 18, 2010. The hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment is continued to February 2, 2010. All other Court-ordered deadlines remain in place.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 28, 2009 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge

2