Smith v. Reinke et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Continue Trial 44 is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

RANDOLPH SMITH,
Case No. 1:12-cv-00030-BLW
Plaintiff,
v.
BRENT REINKE and JOHANNA
SMITH,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial. (Dkt. 44). For the
reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Randolph Smith is a deaf prisoner at the Idaho State Correctional
Institute. He has sued officials at Idaho’s Department of Corrections under the American
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Smith alleges that
defendants violated his rights under these acts by denying his request to use a videophone

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

to communicate with friends and relatives. Trial is scheduled to begin on January 20,
2015. Defendants ask that trial be rescheduled for the spring of 2015.
ANALYSIS
Whether to grant a continuance is entrusted to the trial court’s discretion. See
Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 961 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district court’s
decision regarding a continuance is given great deference, ‘and will not be disturbed on
appeal absent clear abuse of [the court’s] discretion.’” (citation omitted)). The factors the
trial court should use in exercising its discretion include determining the extent to which
granting a continuance will inconvenience the Court and the opposing party, as well as
the moving party’s diligence in preparing its case for trial. See United States v. Flynt,
756 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th Cir. 1985).
Upon considering these factors, the Court concludes that a continuance is not
warranted. There is sufficient time for defense counsel to prepare for trial, despite the
relatively recent substitution of defense counsel Leslie Hayes. Further, as the plaintiff
points out, this litigation has been pending for nearly three years, and it is time to bring
the matter to trial.
As for defendant’s request to reopen discovery, the Court does not find that they
have established the necessary “good cause” to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson
v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).
Lastly, the Court declines plaintiff’s invitation to rule on the pending motion in
limine (Dkt. 43) before ruling on this motion to continue.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial (Dkt. 44) is
DENIED.

DATED: October 24, 2014

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3