Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01520/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01520-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

No. 2:01-cv-1520-MCE-GGH 

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;

and CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE,

CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

______________________________

AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS,

COUNTER-ACTIONS, THIRD-PARTY ACTIONS,

AND FOURTH-PARTY ACTIONS.

----oo0oo----

On December 22, 2005, Third Party Defendant Barton

Healthcare System (“Barton”) moved for summary judgment with

respect to the Third Party Complaint filed against Barton by

Third Party Plaintiff El Dorado County, California (“El Dorado”). 

That motion is now scheduled for hearing on January 23, 2006. 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 266 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 4
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

While El Dorado’s moving papers, filed January 3, 2006, 1

refer to an Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time on a

hearing to continue the pending summary judgment motion, no date

for hearing was sought other than a request that continuance be

granted prior to the January 9, 2006 deadline for submitting

opposition in advance of the January 23, 2006 hearing. After

reviewing the moving papers, and the opposition thereto, the

Court finds that no hearing date is necessary, and accordingly

elects to treat El Dorado’s request simply as an ex parte

application for continuance.

2

Presently before the Court is an Ex Parte Application submitted 1

by El Dorado for a continuance of the hearing on Barton’s Motion

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).

El Dorado contends, through the declaration of its counsel,

Thomas Vandenburg, that further discovery, and most notably

discovery pertaining to Barton’s expert witnesses, is essential

to properly oppose the motions. In particular, El Dorado

contends that it needs to depose James Davidson and Richard

Martin, two experts whose opinions are offered by way of

declarations submitted in support of Barton’s motion. El Dorado

states that it was unaware of the existence of those experts

before Barton’s motion was filed, an assertion not surprising in

view of the fact that the deadline for expert disclosure in this

case will not expire until February 14, 2007. El Dorado

maintains that deposition testimony from Mr. Davidson and Mr.

Martin is necessary in order to properly examine the bases for

their opinions and to adequately respond to Barton’s motion.

The Court agrees that this discovery appears directly

related to formulating El Dorado’s opposition. Rule 56(f)

provides for continuance of a summary judgment motion under such

circumstances, stating in pertinent part as follows:

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 266 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

(f) When Affidavits are Unavailable. 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.

Rule 56(f) confers the court with discretion to order that

additional discovery be completed before summary judgment, or to

“make such order as it just” to “protect parties from a premature

grant of summary judgment.” Weinberg v. Whatcom County, 241 F.3d

746, 750 (9 Cir. 2001). “A district court should continue a th

summary judgment upon a good faith showing by affidavit that the

continuance is needed to obtain facts essential to preclude

summary judgment.” Id. at 750, citing California v. Campbell,

138 F.3d 772, 779 (9 Cir. 1998). th

 Because the Court believes that El Dorado has the right to

conduct discovery testing the reasoning and rationale underlying

the expert opinion advanced by Barton in support of its Motion

for Summary Judgment, the hearing on Barton’s motion is

accordingly continued to March 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The

deadlines for opposition and reply, if any, shall be calculated

in advance of that continued date in accordance with Local Rule

78-230(c). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 10, 2006

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 266 Filed 01/11/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 266 Filed 01/11/06 Page 4 of 4