Epps v. Grannis et al

Filing 116

ORDER Denying Defendant's 111 Ex Parte Application to Continue Time for Completing Discovery or Filing Dispositive Motions. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 7/15/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

OMAR ERNEST EPPS,

Case No. 10cv1949 BEN (KSC)
Plaintiff,

9

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO
CONTINUE TIME FOR
COMPLETING DISCOVERY
OR FILING DISPOSITIVE
MOTIONS
[Dkt. No. 111]

vs.

10
11
12

N. GRANNIS, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

I. INTRODUCTION

15

Defendants have filed an ex parte application to continue the recently ordered

16

discovery cutoff dates and date for filing summary judgment motions. Plaintiff has yet

17

to file a response. The request is denied.

18

The only RLUIPA claims remaining to be tried on the merits are: (1) the

19

RLUIPA claim in Count 2 about a prison policy of denying Plaintiff kosher diets; (2)

20

the RLUIPA claim in Count 5 about a prison policy on Plaintiff’s purchasing through

21

religious vendors; and (3) the RLUIPA claim in Count 6 about a policy of retaining

22

Plaintiff’s confiscated religious books.1 The only § 1983 claim remaining to be tried

23

on the merits is the claim in Count 5 brought against prison employee Meister, in his

24

individual capacity regarding the rejection of mail on October 10, 2008.

25
26
1

27

Plaintiff’s own discovery requests assert that his confiscated religious books
have already been returned to him, which if true, would moot this RLUIPA claim.

28

-1-

II. DISCUSSION

1
2

A scheduling order was entered on September 11, 2012. The order required the

3

parties to complete all fact discovery by March 15, 2013. Plaintiff served discovery and

4

filed a motion to compel prior to this date. Defendants sought leave to depose plaintiff

5

in prison, as they must. A settlement conference is scheduled for July 31, 2013. All

6

other pretrial motions are due by August 19, 2013.

7

Because this Court did not resolve the motion to compel or the request to depose

8

until June 28, 2013, Defendants were given four additional weeks to produce any

9

discovery compelled and depose plaintiff.
In addition, the time for filing summary judgment motions was advanced two

10
11

weeks from August 19, 2013 to August 5, 2013.

12

As a result, all discovery should be completed prior to the settlement conference

13

scheduled with the Magistrate Judge for July 31, 2013. In the event the parties do not

14

reach a settlement agreement, summary judgment motions may be filed the following

15

week.

16

Defendants seek an additional 90-120 days because the principal associate

17

assigned to the case left the law firm. Without offering specifics, they also say that

18

many of the clients and counsel have pending vacations.

19

The breadth of the case has been significantly circumscribed. The number of

20

issues narrowed. The scheduling order has been in place since last year and only

21

slightly modified. The plaintiff is entitled to have his 2010 case adjudged. The ex parte

22

motion is denied.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 15, 2013

25
26

Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge

27
28

-2-