Derby v. City of Pittsburg California et al

Filing 70

ORDER SETTING NEW BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MODIFYING PRETRIAL DATES REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY AND SETTLEMENTgranting in part and denying in part 64 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/3/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WADE DERBY,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.
CITY OF PITTSBURG CALIFORNIA,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant.

12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER SETTING NEW BRIEFING
SCHEDULE AND HEARING ON
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MODIFYING
PRETRIAL DATES REGARDING
EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
SETTLEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 64

13
14

Case No. 16-cv-05469-SI

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file the opposition to
defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s opposition is due May 4, 2018, and

plaintiff requests a 90 day extension of the deadline because one of his lawyers is currently
engaged in a criminal trial, and plaintiff’s other lawyer is “not a federal court motion writing
wizard.” Horowitz Decl. ¶ 3. Defendant opposes the request for an extension on numerous
grounds, including that an extension would impact the current schedule for expert discovery and
settlement discussions.
The Court will grant plaintiff an extension of time, though the Court finds that plaintiff has
not demonstrated good cause for a 90 day extension. The Court sets the following schedule on
defendant’s motion for summary judgment: plaintiff’s opposition must be filed by June 8, 2018,
and defendant’s reply is due June 22, 2018. The Court will hold a hearing on defendant’s motion
on July 6, 2018 at 10 a.m.
In order to accommodate the new summary judgment schedule, the Court sets the
following new schedule for expert discovery: designation of experts shall be done by July 27,

1

2018, and designation of rebuttal experts shall be done by August 17, 2018. In addition, the Court

2

finds that it is in the interest of judicial efficiency to permit the parties to reschedule the June 19,

3

2018 settlement conference to a date in August. The parties shall contact Magistrate Judge James’

4

chambers to reschedule the settlement conference; if Judge James is unavailable in August, the

5

parties shall promptly notify the Court in order to be referred to a different magistrate judge for

6

settlement.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: May 3, 2018

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2