Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00161/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00161-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2674 Federal Tort Claims 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUSTAVO GODOY

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and DOES

1 through 50

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv161 L (NLS)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO

EXTEND DEADLINES

[Docket No. 13.]

On August 12, 2011, the Court issued a Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and other PreTrial Proceedings. [Docket No. 12.] On January 27, 2012, the parties filed the Joint Motion for

Extension of Discovery Deadline and for Extensions of Other Relevant Deadlines [Docket No. 13.]

currently before the Court. The parties seek to extend by 90 days all deadlines except the October 12,

2001 deadline to amend the pleadings. The Joint Motion states: 

The parties have engaged in discovery in that both parties have provided to the opposing

party that party’s initial disclosures and submitted requests/demands. 

The parties have either responded to or [sic]in the process of responding to those

requests/demands. However, neither party reasonably anticipates that the discovery

process will be completed on or before February 24, 2012, despite both parties’ best 

efforts.

Counsel for Plaintiff also acknowledges that the primary reason for some of the delays

has been Plaintiff and counsel for Plaintiff’s recent injuries and illnesses.

Counsel for Plaintiff also acknowledges that the injuries and illnesses have contributed

significantly to Plaintiff’s inability to respond to all of Defendant’s requests/demands.

The other complication is that Plaintiff continues to be treated medically for the

injuries at issue in the case.

1 11-cv-161 L NLS

Case 3:11-cv-00161-L-NLS Document 14 Filed 01/31/12 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

[Motion at 3.] The parties provide no other information as to the actual efforts to complete discovery; 

how Plaintiff or his counsel’s injuries have impeded prosecution of this case; or whether Plaintiff’s

counsel will be able to prosecute this case if given the requested 90 day extension.

Based on the scant showing provided, the Court is without sufficient information to grant the

joint motion. The parties are free to renew the Joint Motion, if they can provide sufficient information

to: 1) explain the efforts both sides have made to comply with the existing deadlines; 2) justify the

extension sought; and 3) explain whether any illness or injury will prevent Plaintiff’s counsel from

meeting the new deadlines sought. Plaintiff’s counsel may file a declaration under seal in order to

protect his privacy and keep any medical conditions confidential.

Accordingly, and Good Cause Not Appearing, It Is hereby Ordered that the Joint Motion to

Extend Deadlines is Denied Without Prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 31, 2012

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

2 11-cv-161 L NLS

Case 3:11-cv-00161-L-NLS Document 14 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 2