Johnson v. United States of America et al

Filing 236

Order by Hon. James Donato granting in part and denying in part 227 Motion for Extension of Time to File. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES ELLIS JOHNSON,

Case No. 13-cv-02405-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER

9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Re: Dkt. No. 227

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court has received plaintiff’s request for another extension of the expert disclosures

13

deadlines and to extend the deadline for responding to defendant’s motion for partial summary

14

judgment. Dkt. No. 227. Defendants oppose the first request. The Court grants in part and denies

15

in part the requests.

16

The Court denies plaintiff’s request to extend the time to respond to the summary

17

judgment motion. This motion has been pending since September 23, 2015, and the deadline for

18

plaintiff to respond to the motion has already been extended twice. Dkt. Nos. 207, 216. Plaintiff

19

says that he should not have to respond to the motion until “discovery is over” or has in hand

20

discovery “he has a legal right to.” But as the parties are aware, fact discovery in this matter

21

closed on November 13, 2015. See Dkt. No. 216. And although plaintiff has a few lingering

22

motions to compel pending, he has not demonstrated any link between the allegedly outstanding

23

information and his response to the motion. Nor has Johnson explained how the expert report he

24

seeks on his “medical records” from a “shoulder doctor” could possibly impact his response to the

25

partial summary judgment motion, which is narrowly focused on the single issue of whether the

26

officers had cause to arrest plaintiff Johnson on January 30, 2012. See Dkt. No. 219; Dkt. No.

27

188. Plaintiff has not identified any “substantial harm or prejudice that would occur” if the Court

28

does not grant a third extension, as required under local rules. See Civil L.R. 6-3(a)(3).

1

Consequently, the Court denies plaintiff’s request for a third extension to respond to the summary

2

judgment motion.

3

The Court grants plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to submit an expert report.
Although defendant points out that the expert discovery deadline has already been extended three

5

times to accommodate plaintiff, its objection to the extension appears based mainly on a projected

6

overlap with pre-trial deadlines. Dkt. No. 228. While that concern is certainly valid, the Court

7

needs to continue the trial date in this case to accommodate another matter. The Court vacates the

8

pre-trial conference and trial dates in this matter, resets the pre-trial conference date to April 6,

9

2016 at 3:00 p.m., and sets the trial date on April 25, 2016. Given this extension of the overall

10

schedule, the Court grants plaintiff’s request to serve his expert report by January 21, 2016. If

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

plaintiff meets that date, defendant may serve a responsive report by February 4, 2016. This is the

12

last extension that will be granted for plaintiff’s expert report.

13

The Court has a new Standing Order for Civil Jury Trials available on the Court’s website

14

that sets out revised deadlines for pretrial matters. The parties should read this standing order

15

before planning their pre-trial filings.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: December 22, 2015

18
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2