Adams v. Albertson et al

Filing 154

ORDER DENYING PRECIS REQUEST TO FILE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE re 150 Letter filed by Mark Letell Adams, 152 Letter filed by Justin Council, Michael Anderson, City of San Carlos Police Department, City of San Carlos, Ronald Albertson, Greg Rothaus. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 20, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

MARK LETELL ADAMS,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 10-04787 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

18

RONALD ALBERTSON individually in
his official capacity as a former San Carlos
Police Sergeant, MICHAEL ANDERSON
individually in his official capacity as a
former San Carlos Police Officer, JUSTIN
COUNCIL individually in his official
capacity as a former San Carlos Police
Officer, GREG ROTHAUS individually in
his official capacity as a former San Carlos
Police Chief, CITY OF SAN CARLOS,
CITY OF SAN CARLOS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1–100,

19

ORDER DENYING PRÉCIS
REQUEST TO FILE MOTION
FOR CONTINUANCE

Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17

/

20
21

Plaintiff Mark Adams submits a prècis request to file a motion for continuance pursuant to

22

Rule 56(f) (Dkt. No. 150). Defendants oppose (Dkt. No. 152). A party requesting a continuance

23

pursuant to Rule 56(f) must identify the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and

24

explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment. Tatum v. City and County of San

25

Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). Adams does not identify any specific facts that

26

further discovery would reveal or explain how those facts would preclude summary judgment.

27

Adams’ request is similar to his earlier request to extend discovery (Dkt. No. 137). In

28

denying without prejudice that request, the order required Adams to obtain the recommendation

1

of Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James, who is handling all discovery disputes in this action

2

(Dkt. No. 139). Adams has not submitted an update regarding Judge James’ recommendation as

3

to whether discovery should be extended. Judge James denied Adams’ latest discovery requests,

4

suggesting that extending discovery in this action is unwarranted (Dkt. Nos. 145, 148).

5
6

Plaintiff Adams’ request to file motion for continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: December 20, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2