Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE RHODES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1715 MCE EFB PS

vs.

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS 

CORPORATION, 

ORDER

Defendant. 

 /

On June 13, 2007, plaintiff filed a request to extend the discovery deadline, which

expired on April 13, 2007. Plaintiff requests that discovery remain open so “everything goes

smooth” in his efforts to conduct a Rule 45 inspection of the office of one of defendant’s

employees. Plaintiff refers to a subpoena, purportedly issued on June 11, 2007, authorizing him

to conduct this inspection. 

At the time plaintiff made the request, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment

had been taken under submission and were pending before the court. Plaintiff cites no rule or

authority justifying an order re-opening discovery or allowing supplemental briefing on his

already submitted motion for summary judgment. 

Even construing plaintiff’s request as timely motion made pursuant to Rule 56(f), his

request must be denied. In order to succeed on a Rule 56(f) motion, the movant must show

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 136 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

diligence in pursuing discovery previously, and must show how more discovery might preclude

summary judgment. Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 1998). The record shows that

plaintiff has been uncooperative during discovery and has had to be repeatedly advised to read

and abide by applicable rules. Plaintiff also has failed to show how more discovery might

preclude summary judgment. Accordingly, plaintiff’s untimely request to conduct additional

discovery is denied. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 2, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 136 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 2