Osborne et al v. Vancouver Police et al

Filing 65

ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion 63 is GRANTED in part. The Clerk of Court shall re-note Defendants' summary judgment motions (Dkts. 51 and 57) for December 16, 2016. Plaintiff's responses to the summary judgment mo tions are due on December 12, 2016; Defendants' replies are due on December 16, 2016. Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 63) regarding Osborne v Clark County Sheriff's Office, No. C16-5307BHS-DWC is not properly before this Court and for that reason is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG)(cc mailed to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
LUCAS OSBORNE,
7
8
9
10

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C15-5877 BHS-KLS

v.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION (DKT. 63)

VANCOUVER POLICE, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Before the Court is Plaintiff Lucas Osborne’s motion for extension (Dkt. 63), seeking a
thirty day extension of a deposition in another case and a sixty day extension of his deadline to
respond to defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Dkts. 51 and 57) in this case. Dkt. 63.
As noted by defendants, the deposition mentioned in Mr. Osborne’s motion is for a
different lawsuit (Osborne v. Clark County Sheriff’s Office, No. C16-5307 BHS-DWC) and the
deposition has already been rescheduled. Dkt. 64, p. 1 n.1. Defendants oppose Mr. Osborne’s
request for a sixty day extension of his deadline to respond to their summary judgment motions
in this case because he has failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Id., pp. 2-3.
DISCUSSION
To obtain relief under Rule 56(d), parties “must show (1) that they have set forth in
affidavit form the specific facts that they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts
sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are ‘essential’ to resist the summary judgment

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION - 1

1 motion.” State of California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). The burden is on
2 the party seeking to conduct additional discovery to put forth sufficient facts to show that the
3 evidence sought exists, and that it would prevent summary judgment. Employers Teamsters
4 Local Nos. 175 &505 Pension Trust Fund v. Clorox Co., 353 F.3d 1125, 1129-30 (9th Cir.
5 2004).
6

Mr. Osborne asks for a sixty day extension “to better put my answers together.” Dkt. 63.

7 He does not seek a continuance for the purpose of conducting additional discovery pursuant to
8 Rule 56(d). Because he is proceeding pro se in this matter, the Court believes a thirty day
9 extension of his deadline is appropriate and will not prejudice defendants.
10

Plaintiff was previously advised in this Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. 41) and in

11 the notices sent by defendants contemporaneously with their motions for summary judgment
12 (Dkts. 52 and 58), as to what he must do to oppose a motion for summary judgment. In an
13 abundance of caution, the Court restates the notice here:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for
summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there
is no genuine issue of material fact – that is, if there is no real dispute
about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for
summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end
your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary
j udgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony),
you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out
specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or
authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the
facts shown in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show
that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit
your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may
be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will
be dismissed and there will be no trial.
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added).

23

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION - 2

1

It is, therefore, ORDERED:

2

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 63) is GRANTED in part. The Clerk of Court shall re-

3 note Defendants’ summary judgment motions (Dkts. 51 and 57) for December 16, 2016.
4 Plaintiff’s responses to the summary judgment motions are due on December 12, 2016;
5 Defendants’ replies are due on December 16, 2016.
6

(2)

Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 63) regarding Osborne v. Clark County Sheriff’s Office,

7 No. C16-5307 BHS-DWC is not properly before this Court and for that reason is DENIED.
8

(3)

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for

9 Defendants.
10

DATED this 8TH day of November, 2016.

A

11
12

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION - 3