Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

)

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 02-6583 AWI SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE REQUEST FOR MORE

TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION

ORDER MOVING HEARING DATE

OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 TO

OCTOBER 3, 2005

(Document # 306)

Defendant Catherine Lock’s’s motion for summary judgment is pending in this action and

is set for oral argument to be heard on September 26, 2005. On September 8, 2005, Plaintiffs

filed an ex parte request for more time in which to file their opposition. On September 8, 2005,

Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ request.

Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is

required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause

shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order

the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period

originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made

after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the

failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; but it may not extend the time

for taking any action under Rules 50(b) and (c)(2), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), and

60(b), except to the extent and under the conditions stated in them.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(b). In their motion, Plaintiffs show good cause for the continuance. The

evidence before the court indicates that Defendant Catherine Lock’s deposition was taken on

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 310 Filed 09/13/05 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 2

August 17, 2005. The normal practice of the reporting company who recorded the deposition is

to deliver depositions within 10 business days after the deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not

receive the deposition until September 8, 2005. Without evidence that Plaintiffs’ counsel knew

the reporting company would take additional time to complete the deposition, the court does not

find Plaintiffs’ counsel should have ordered expedited copies of the deposition. The court

recognizes that Plaintiffs delayed taking depositions in this case. However, the court finds a one

week continuance is reasonable. 

Accordingly, GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. Plaintiffs’ ex-parte request to for more time to respond is GRANTED;

2. The previously set hearing date of September 26, 2005, is VACATED, and the

parties shall not appear at that time;

3. Plaintiffs may file any opposition to Defendant Catherine Lock’s motion for

summary judgment by 4:00 p.m. on September 16, 2005;

4. Defendants may file any reply by 4:00 p.m. on September 23, 2005; and

5. The hearing on Defendant Catherine Lock’s motion for summary judgment is set

for October 3, 2005 at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 310 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 2