Elder-Evins v. Casey et al

Filing 204

ORDER re: (1) 198 the parties' stipulation to continue the competency hearing and (2) hearing on 200 Plaintiff's motion to exclude records. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 02/10/2012.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
ANNETTE SHARLENE ELDER-EVINS,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

13
MICHAEL J. CASEY, et al.
14
15
16

No. C 09-05775 LB
ORDER RE: (1) THE PARTIES’
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE
COMPETENCY HEARING AND (2)
HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXCLUDE RECORDS

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
On June 28, 2011, Judge Armstrong referred Defendant’s motion to determine Plaintiff’s

17

competency. Order of Reference, ECF No. 148; see Defendant’s Motion, ECF No. 115. Since then,

18

Plaintiff’s counsel has been appointed for purposes of this competency hearing. The competency

19

hearing has been continued several times: from August 25, 2011, to November 17, 2011, to

20

December 15, 2011, to January 19, 2012, and to its current date of March 15, 2012. Plaintiff’s

21

opposition and Defendant’s reply briefs have yet to be filed, although they are currently due, per the

22

parties’ stipulation, on February 9, 2012 and February 23, 2012, respectively.

23

The parties have now filed a stipulation seeking a further continuance of the competency

24

hearing. Stipulation, ECF No. 198. The reason for this continuance is the unavailability of Dr.

25

Apostle, whose oral testimony Defendant would like to present at the hearing. Id. Good cause

26

being shown, the court will continue the hearing on Defendant’s motion to determine Plaintiff’s

27

competency. It will be heard on Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 11:00 a.m., which is the court’s next

28

available law and motion calendar date that does not appear to conflict with either Dr. Apostle’s or

C 09-05775 LB

1

Defendant’s counsel’s schedules, as listed in the parties’ stipulation.

2

The court does not find good cause, however, to extend the briefing schedule that the parties

3

chose by stipulation. Accordingly, Defendant’s reply brief is still due no later than February 23,

4

2012.

5

In addition to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff filed on February 10, 2012 a motion to exclude

6

records and an objection to Defendant’s request for judicial notice. Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No.

7

200. Plaintiff noticed her motion for March 15, 2012. In light of the continuation of the hearing on

8

Defendant’s motion, the court will continue the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, too. Plaintiff’s motion

9

will be heard on Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 11:00 a.m., and briefing on Plaintiff’s motion shall

10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

proceed in accordance with this District’s Civil Local Rule 7-3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 10, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 09-05775 LB

2