Madsen v. Risenhoover et al

Filing 112

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 109 Motion for Extension of Time to File (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7

RICK MADSEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SUE E. RISENHOOVER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )

No. C 09-5457 SBA (pr)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS'
REPLY

8

Defendants' motion for summary judgment by twenty-seven days, to September 20, 2012, and also

11
For the Northern District of California

Before the Court is Defendants' request to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to oppose

10

United States District Court

9

extend the deadline for Defendants to reply in support of the motion for summary judgment until

12

October 12, 2012. Defendants' attorney, Deputy Attorney General Jillian R. Weader, has

13

submitted a declaration stating that she is requesting this extension because she will be "on leave

14

from the office and unavailable from August 31, 2012, until September 20, 2012." (Weader Decl.

15

¶ 7.) Attorney Weader gives no further reason for her request for this extension.

16

Both parties in the present case have been granted multiple extensions of time to file briefs

17

in this action. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was filed on February 10, 2012. Prior to

18

filing that motion, Defendants received two extensions of time to file their dispositive motion.

19

(Docket nos. 60, 70.) Plaintiff's opposition is due on August 24, 2012. Plaintiff has previously

20

been granted two extensions of time to file his opposition. (Docket nos. 98, 108.) The Court also

21
22
23
24

provided Plaintiff with a Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), notice
(which repeats the Rand summary judgment notice provided in the Court's March 31, 2011 Order
of Service at pages 10-11) as required by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Woods v. Carey,
No. 09-15548, slip op. 7871, 7874 (9th Cir. July 6, 2012). (Docket no. 104.) Defendants' reply to

25
the opposition is due on September 7, 2012. In its July 20, 2012 Order Granting in Part and
26
27
28

Denying in Part Plaintiff's Request for a Second Extension of Time to File a Response to
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court also specified: "No further extensions of
time will be granted in this case absent exigent circumstances." (July 20, 2012 Order at 2
(emphasis in original).)

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(3)(A), district courts must enter a

2

scheduling order to establish deadlines to, among other things, "file motions." Fed. R. Civ. P.

3

16(b)(3)(A). Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is entered, the schedule "may be modified only for

4

good cause and with the judge's consent." Id. 16(b)(4). "A scheduling order 'is not a frivolous

5

piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.'"

6

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted).

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Rule 16 provides that deadlines established in a case management order may "be modified
only for good cause[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "Good cause" exists when a deadline "cannot
reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Johnson, 975 F.2d at
609 (citation omitted). Thus, "Rule 16(b)'s 'good cause' standard primarily considers the diligence
of the party seeking the amendment." Id.; see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271,

12
1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Where the moving party has not been diligent, the inquiry ends and the
13
14
15
16
17

motion should be denied. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002);
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.
Here, Defendants have failed to establish good cause for their request to modify the current
briefing schedule. As mentioned above, the parties have been granted multiple extensions of time

18

to file briefs in this matter. Furthermore, Defendants' motion for summary judgment has been

19

pending for almost six months. Finally, Attorney Weader fails to identify any existing exigent

20

circumstances warranting an extension of time. In fact, she gives no reason other than the fact that

21

she will be "on leave" prior to the deadline for the reply; therefore, without more, the Court finds a

22

lack of diligence by the moving party. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is DENIED. The parties

23

shall abide by the briefing schedule outlined in the Court's July 20, 2012 Order. No further

24

extensions of time will be granted in this case absent exigent circumstances.

25

This Order terminates Docket no. 109.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

DATED: _8/1/12

28

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Madsen5457.denyEOT-DEFreply.frm

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

2

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

RICK MADSEN,

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
SUE E. RISENHOOVER et al,
Defendant.

12
13

Case Number: CV09-05457 SBA

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on August 3, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

18
19

22

Rick Madsen E10400
Pelican Bay State Prison
P.O. Box 7500
5905 Lake Earl Drive
Crescent City, CA 95531

23

Dated: August 3, 2012

20
21

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk

24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Madsen5457.denyEOT-DEFreply.frm

3