Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02346/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02346-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

E.K. WADE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02346 CRB

ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE

On May 25, 2007, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment in this case

for argument on July 6, 2007. Plaintiff’s opposition was due on July 15, 2007. In lieu of an

opposition, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue the hearing, stating that he needs additional

time to retain an expert witness to testify on his behalf. Plaintiff asked to reschedule the

hearing for September 6, 2007.

Plaintiff’s request for a continuance is hereby GRANTED. However, the Court is

unavailable on September 6, 2007. Accordingly, the motion will be rescheduled for

argument two weeks earlier, on August 24, 2007. To further accommodate Plaintiff’s

request, however, the Court will permit Plaintiff to file his opposition on or before August

10, 2007. The government’s reply shall be filed on or before August 17, 2007.

The Court notes that Plaintiff previously advanced similar tort claims in a related case,

in which he also requested additional time to obtain the services of an expert witness. See

Case 3:06-cv-02346-CRB Document 72 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2006\2346\order 4.wpd 2

United States v. Wade, No. 06-cv-04593-CRB (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2007) (granting Plaintiff

additional time to submit expert testimony in support of his claim for negligent infliction of

emotional distress, a claim that is also advanced by Plaintiff in this case). Thus, in light of

Plaintiff’s previous efforts to obtain expert testimony on precisely the same issues presented

in this case, the Court considers a five-week continuance adequate to accommodate

Plaintiff’s needs. No further continuances will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02346-CRB Document 72 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 2