Janoe v. Stone, et al

Filing 94

ORDER denying 91 Plaintiff's ex parte application for court order to Produce missing pages from deposition and granting 92 plaintiff's ex parte application for continuance of time to file opposition to dft's 89 Motion for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 2/19/2010, Replies due by 3/1/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 1/19/2010. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(tkl) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On December 23, 2009, Plaintiff Bobby Shawn Janoe (hereafter "Plaintiff") filed an Ex Parte Application For Court Order To Produce Missing Pages From Deposition (hereafter "Motion Regarding Deposition"). On January 5, 2010, Defendants filed an Opposition to the Motion Regarding Deposition. On January 4, 2010, Plaintiff also filed an Ex Parte v. DEE STONE, et al., Defendants. BOBBY SHAWN JANOE, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 06-1511-JM(WVG) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR COURT ORDER TO PRODUCE MISSING PAGES FROM DEPOSITION (DOC. # 91) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. # 92) ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL DATES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Application For Continuance of Time To File Opposition Brief To Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment. the Motion. 1 Defendants do not oppose

06CV1511

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1/

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's Ex Parte Applications, Defendants' Opposition to the Motion Regarding Deposition, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, HEREBY ORDERS: Motion Regarding Deposition Plaintiff states that included with Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed on December 9, 2009), are selected pages of his deposition. He contends that Defendants should provide him with copies of the "missing pages" of the deposition which Defendants did not provide to the Court or to him.1/ Plaintiff believes that he needs the "missing pages" of his deposition in order to oppose Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants argue that they are not obligated to send copies of the "missing pages" of Plaintiff's deposition to Plaintiff. Defendants assert that if Plaintiff wants copies of the "missing pages," he can contact the court reporter who recorded the deposition and purchase from the court reporter his entire deposition and/or the pages of the deposition that he seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6) states: Using Part of Deposition. If a party offers in evidence only part of a deposition, an adverse party may require the offeror to introduce other parts that in fairness should be considered with the part introduced, and any party may itself, introduce any other parts. Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating to the Court why he needs the missing pages of his deposition. See fn.1 Here,

Plaintiff fails to show why "in fairness (the `missing pages' of his deposition) should be considered with the part (of his deposition)

Specifically, Plaintiff references pages 5-40, 43-60, 64-78, 82, 87 and 94-95 of his deposition as the "missing pages."

2

06CV1511

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

introduced" by Defendants in the Motion for Summary Judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6). As a result, Plaintiff's Motion Regarding Deposition is DENIED without prejudice. Ex Parte Application For Continuance Of Time To File Opposition To Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff argues that he needs additional time to file an opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment because he is waiting for copies of pages of his deposition as noted above, and that he has been unable to research relevant case law cited in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's request for extension of time to file an opposition to their Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants' counsel has informed the Court that he has provided Plaintiff with the case law that Plaintiff has been unable to research. Since the date Plaintiff was required to file an opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment passed while the motions discussed in this Order were pending, the Court ORDERS: 1. The date by which Plaintiff shall file an Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is extended to February 19, 2010.2/ 2. The date by which Defendants shall file a Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition is extended to March 1, 2010. 3. The hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment,

2/

If Plaintiff is unable to make the requisite showing that the omitted portions of his deposition should "in fairness," be considered with those portions of his deposition already provided to the Court, he should make the necessary arrangements to obtain his deposition (or portions thereof) from the court reporter who recorded the deposition. If Plaintiff chooses to make the arrangements noted above, he shall do so sufficiently in advance of February 19, 2010 so as to allow him to file a timely opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Requests for further delay will not be favorably considered.

3

06CV1511

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

set for January 26, 2010, is VACATED. 4. All other dates noted in the Case Management Order, dated March 24, 2009, including the Pretrial Conference and Trial dates, are VACATED.

DATED:

January 19, 2010

Hon. William V. Gallo U.S. Magistrate Judge

4

06CV1511