Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04054/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04054-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL WAYNE SCHILLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARY LOREDO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-04054-YGR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION; 

AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

DEPOSITION 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Request for Extension of Time for Deposition and 

Production of Documents,” in which he has requested an extension of time for his deposition by 

Defendants so that he can bring documents with him to the deposition and request the production 

of documents to him. Dkt. 21. Also before the Court is Defendants’ motion for a second

extension of time to file a dispositive motion. Dkt. 25. 

The Court first notes that the record shows that Plaintiff’s deposition has already taken 

place. Dkt. 24 at 2. Defendants have informed the Court that during the deposition, “the parties 

discussed Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, discovery issues, and other aspects of this 

litigation.” Id. They stated that “[b]ecause Plaintiff’s deposition has already been conducted to 

the parties’ satisfaction, Plaintiff’s request is moot.” Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response 

to Defendants’ aforementioned statements. Therefore, the Court construes his lack of a response 

as his concession that his request is now moot. Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot 

Plaintiff’s “Request for Extension of Time for Deposition and Production of Documents.” Dkt. 

21.

Secondly, Defendants have moved for a second extension of time, through September 25, 

2018, to file a dispositive motion. The Court has read and considered Defendants’ motion and the 

accompanying declaration of counsel and, good cause appearing, Defendants’ requested brief 

extension of time is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their dispositive motion no later than 

September 25, 2018.

Case 4:17-cv-04054-YGR Document 26 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court and 

served on Defendants no later than sixty (60) days from the date Defendants’ motion is filed.

Defendants’ reply brief shall be filed no later than twenty (28) days after Plaintiff’s 

opposition is filed on the Court’s electronic filing system. The motion shall be deemed submitted 

as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so 

orders at a later date.

The Court notes that this is Defendants’ second extension in this case. The granting of 

regular requests for extension should not be expected.

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 21 and 25.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

September 17, 2018

Case 4:17-cv-04054-YGR Document 26 Filed 09/17/18 Page 2 of 2