Hutchison v. California Prison Industry Authority et al

Filing 182

***DISREGARD, INCORRECT PROOF OF SERVICE ATTACHED.*** ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/3/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2016) Modified on 5/3/2016 (ndrS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 EDWIN JAY HUTCHINSON, 5 6 No. Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. 7 8 CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, et al., 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 C 13-04635 CW Defendants. ________________________________/ On September 25, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion 12 under Rule 56(d) and ordered that all discovery disputes and 13 issues be presented to Magistrate Judge Beeler. 14 The Court further ordered that Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ 15 motions for summary judgment would be due twenty-eight days after 16 the discovery disputes were resolved. 17 Magistrate Judge Beeler entered an order requiring Defendant A. 18 Deems to produce certain photographs and stating, “Discovery is 19 now closed.” 20 Docket No. 113. On April 29, 2016, Docket No. 181. Defendant Deems shall file a notice when he produces the 21 photographs. 22 summary judgment is within twenty-eight days thereafter. 23 Defendants’ replies are due fourteen days after service of 24 Plaintiff’s response 25 Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motions for IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 Dated: May 3, 2016 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

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?