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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?