Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05714/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05714-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA HOFFMAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

KENT TONNEMACHER, M.D.; )

UNKNOWN PHYSICIANS; )

MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CIV F 04-5714 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF ADDITIONAL

TIME IN WHICH TO FILE AN

OPPOSITION MOTION AND

SETTING HEARING

Defendant Memorial Medical Center (“MMC”) has noticed for hearing and decision a

motion for partial summary judgment. The matter was scheduled for hearing to be held on

February 27, 2006. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c), Plaintiff was required to file either an

opposition or a notice of non-opposition no later than February 13, 2006. Plaintiff failed to do so

and on February 15, 2006, this Court signed an order vacating the hearing and taking the matter

under submission. After the Court had signed that order but before the order was docketed,

Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a four (4) day extension of time in which to file an

opposition/Rule 56(f) motion. 

In the ex parte application, Plaintiff’s counsel explains that he has been out of town for

court discovery proceedings and other prepatory related tasks in connection with an on-going

capital evidentiary hearing in Contra Costa county. Counsel states that he has been out of town

Case 1:04-cv-05714-AWI-DLB Document 46 Filed 02/16/06 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 daw 2

on this matter for most of the month of January 2006 and that he will be returning to Fresno on

the evening of February 16, 2006. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel notes that Penny Hastie’s

deposition is scheduled for February 21, 2006, even though the deposition was requested in May

2005, and Hastie has provided an important declaration in support of summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s counsel requests, in light of the above circumstances, to be allowed to file an

opposition/Rule 56(f) motion on or by February 17, 2006. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel states

that he has no objection to moving the hearing date and the due date for MMC’s reply brief. 

Plaintiff’s counsel supports his request for additional time with a declaration which states that the

above circumstances are true and correct. No response to the ex parte application has been filed

by MMC.

The Court is generally not in the habit of granting continuances to file oppositions when

the application for continuance is filed several days after the opposition was due. The reason for

the delay in filing, however, appears to be related to a serious matter, a capital murder case. In

the interests of justice, the Court will allow Plaintiff to file an opposition. However, given that

Penny Hastie’s deposition is set for February 21, 2006, the Court will allow Plaintiff to file an

opposition on or by February 28, 2006, instead of the February 17 date requested. Additionally,

the Court will not look favorably upon further untimely filed motions.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff may file an opposition to MMC’s motion for partial summary judgment

on or by February 28, 2006;

2. Defendant MMC may file a reply on or by March 7, 2006; and

3. The hearing on Defendant MMC’s motion for partial summary judgment will be

on March 13, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05714-AWI-DLB Document 46 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 2