Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01511/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01511-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 06CV1511 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY SHAWN JANOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEE STONE, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06-1511-JM(WVG)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR COURT

ORDER TO PRODUCE MISSING PAGES

FROM DEPOSITION (DOC. # 91)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

CONTINUANCE OF TIME TO FILE

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(DOC. # 92)

ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL DATES

On December 23, 2009, Plaintiff Bobby Shawn Janoe (hereafter

“Plaintiff”) filed an Ex Parte Application For Court Order To

Produce Missing Pages From Deposition (hereafter “Motion Regarding

Deposition”). On January 5, 2010, Defendants filed an Opposition to

the Motion Regarding Deposition.

On January 4, 2010, Plaintiff also filed an Ex Parte

Application For Continuance of Time To File Opposition Brief To

Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment. Defendants do not oppose

the Motion.

Case 3:06-cv-01511-JM-WVG Document 94 Filed 01/19/10 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 1/ Specifically, Plaintiff references pages 5-40, 43-60, 64-78, 82, 87

and 94-95 of his deposition as the “missing pages.”

2 06CV1511 

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Applications,

Defendants’ Opposition to the Motion Regarding Deposition, and GOOD

CAUSE APPEARING, HEREBY ORDERS:

Motion Regarding Deposition

Plaintiff states that included with Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment (filed on December 9, 2009), are selected pages of

his deposition. He contends that Defendants should provide him with

copies of the “missing pages” of the deposition which Defendants did

not provide to the Court or to him.1/ Plaintiff believes that he

needs the “missing pages” of his deposition in order to oppose

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendants argue that they are not obligated to send copies

of the “missing pages” of Plaintiff’s deposition to Plaintiff. 

Defendants assert that if Plaintiff wants copies of the “missing

pages,” he can contact the court reporter who recorded the deposition and purchase from the court reporter his entire deposition

and/or the pages of the deposition that he seeks.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6) states:

Using Part of Deposition. If a party offers in evidence only part of a deposition, an adverse party may

require the offeror to introduce other parts that in

fairness should be considered with the part introduced, and any party may itself, introduce any other

parts. 

Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating to the Court why

he needs the missing pages of his deposition. See fn.1 Here,

Plaintiff fails to show why “in fairness (the ‘missing pages’ of his

deposition) should be considered with the part (of his deposition)

Case 3:06-cv-01511-JM-WVG Document 94 Filed 01/19/10 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

2/ If Plaintiff is unable to make the requisite showing that the

omitted portions of his deposition should “in fairness,” be

considered with those portions of his deposition already provided to

the Court, he should make the necessary arrangements to obtain his

deposition (or portions thereof) from the court reporter who

recorded the deposition. If Plaintiff chooses to make the

arrangements noted above, he shall do so sufficiently in advance of

February 19, 2010 so as to allow him to file a timely opposition to

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Requests for further delay

will not be favorably considered. 

3 06CV1511 

introduced” by Defendants in the Motion for Summary Judgment. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6).

As a result, Plaintiff’s Motion Regarding Deposition is

DENIED without prejudice.

Ex Parte Application For Continuance Of Time To File Opposition To

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff argues that he needs additional time to file an

opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment because he is

waiting for copies of pages of his deposition as noted above, and

that he has been unable to research relevant case law cited in

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants do not oppose

Plaintiff’s request for extension of time to file an opposition to

their Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants’ counsel has informed

the Court that he has provided Plaintiff with the case law that

Plaintiff has been unable to research.

Since the date Plaintiff was required to file an opposition

to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment passed while the motions

discussed in this Order were pending, the Court ORDERS:

1. The date by which Plaintiff shall file an Opposition to

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is extended to February 19,

2010.2/

2. The date by which Defendants shall file a Reply to

Plaintiff’s Opposition is extended to March 1, 2010.

3. The hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,

Case 3:06-cv-01511-JM-WVG Document 94 Filed 01/19/10 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 06CV1511 

set for January 26, 2010, is VACATED.

4. All other dates noted in the Case Management Order, dated

March 24, 2009, including the Pretrial Conference and Trial dates,

are VACATED.

DATED: January 19, 2010

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01511-JM-WVG Document 94 Filed 01/19/10 Page 4 of 4