Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02993/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02993-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SALISBURY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DETECTIVE MICHAEL WARD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-2993 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S RULE

56(f) REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF

DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 95)

Before the Court is plaintiff’s request, filed June 4, 2007, for an extension, pursuant

to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of the deadline to file opposition to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants have opposed plaintiff’s request.

Rule 56(f) provides: “Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the

motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify

the party’s opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a

continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be

had or may make such other order as is just.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). A party seeking a

continuance “must show how additional discovery would preclude summary judgment and

why a party cannot immediately provide ‘specific facts’ demonstrating a genuine issue of

material fact.” See Mackey v. Pioneer Nat'l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Plaintiff seeks a continuance on the grounds that he seeks to (1) move, pursuant to

Rule 36(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to set aside his deemed admissions to

Case 3:06-cv-02993-MMC Document 108 Filed 06/22/07 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

27

28

2

defendants’ requests for admission, and (2) obtain a copy of the deposition of his own

expert, which plaintiff expected to have in his possession by June 14, 2007. Subsequent to

filing his Rule 56(f) request, plaintiff filed, on June 17, 2007, a motion to set aside his

admissions before the Honorable Bernard Zimmerman, but to date plaintiff has neither

noticed such motion for hearing nor sought to have such motion heard on shortened time.

Although the showing plaintiff has made in support of his Rule 56(f) request is barely

adequate, plaintiff’s request is hereby GRANTED. No later than July 6, 2007, plaintiff shall

file his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. As defendants’ lead

counsel has filed notice that she is unavailable between June 27, 2007 and July 11, 2007,

defendants shall file their reply no later than July 20, 2007. The motion will be taken under

submission at that time unless the Court determines, after reviewing the papers, that oral

argument would assist the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02993-MMC Document 108 Filed 06/22/07 Page 2 of 2