Sessoms v. Thornton et al

Filing 127

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Alsup on 5/13/2016. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2016)

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7

TIO DINERO SESSOMS,

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S
PROPOSED SCHEDULE

DR. DARRIN BRIGHT,
Defendant.
/

12
13

No. C 13-00714 WHA

In this prisoner civil rights case, in which plaintiff is represented by pro bono counsel, an

14

order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment in December 2015. At that time, a

15

second case management order issued, setting a trial date of May 31, 2016. Seven weeks before

16

trial, plaintiff filed a motion to continue the trial date to February 2017. The reason given was

17

that lead plaintiff’s counsel (a junior lawyer) was having complications with her pregnancy and

18

would not be able to try the case this May. Accordingly, an order granted the trial continuance.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Now, having already delayed the trial by several months, plaintiff moves to completely
reopen discovery and set a new case management schedule with new dates for amendment of
pleadings, fact discovery, initial disclosures, and dispositive motions. It is far too late in the case
to hit the reset button and plaintiff has not shown good cause to amend the operative scheduling
order. The only reason we are not beginning trial this month is because of plaintiff’s counsel’s
medical issues. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to set a new scheduling order and reopen
discovery is DENIED.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 13, 2016.

__________________________
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE