Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01487/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01487-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

- 1 - 06CV1487

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL BRYAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV1487-LAB (PCL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION

TO EXTEND TIME IN WHICH TO

REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

vs.

BRYAN McPHERSON, PAUL CROOK,

CORONADO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

CORONADO, DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

On April 4, 2007, Defendants moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary

adjudication (“Defendants’ Motion”). The hearing date was extended on May 14, and Plaintiff was

at that time encouraged to be diligent in pursuing discovery. On June 15, the new hearing date was

vacated pending additional discovery. On August 3, discovery deadlines were reset, and the hearing

date for Defendants’ Motion was set for August 27, 2007.

Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(1), Plaintiff’s opposition to the Motion was due August 13. On

that date, rather than filing his opposition, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for an extension of time

in which to file his opposition (“Motion for Extension”). Plaintiff states that he has had difficulty

obtaining discovery from Defendant McPherson, and requests that the deadline for filing his

opposition be extended until September 3, 2007. Defendants oppose the Motion for Extension.

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01487-LAB-CAB Document 49 Filed 08/15/07 Page 1 of 3
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 - 06CV1487

In support of his Motion for Extension, Plaintiff attaches as an exhibit his motion to compel

deposition responses, which Magistrate Judge Cathy Bencivengo granted in part on August 13. Judge

Bencivengo’s order identified the particular questions Defendant McPherson was ordered to answer,

and permitted limited follow-up questions. The total time permitted for this deposition was one hour.

The Court has reviewed the exhibit and notes that Judge Bencivengo did not order Defendant

McPherson to answer all questions identified therein, but only certain of them. Of those she ordered

him to answer, none appears to be directly related to Defendants’ Motion. The questions Plaintiff

identified in his motion that Judge Bencivengo ordered Defendant McPherson to answer deal with

hypothetical situations materially different from the one giving rise to this action. While Defendant

McPherson’s answers to hypothetical questions might have some bearing on his own knowledge of

proper procedure, they have little to do with Plaintiff’s ability to oppose Defendants’ Motion.

During the incident in question, Plaintiff and his brother were in a car in the city of Coronado

and were stopped by police. What happened next is disputed, but Plaintiff maintains Defendant

McPherson Tasered him without good reason. Plaintiff therefore brings claims for direct liability

against Defendant McPherson, and claims for vicarious liability against the City of Coronado, the

Coronado Police Department, and the police chief.

On these facts, Plaintiff himself and his brother know, or should know what happened leading

up to the use of the Taser, and Plaintiff can oppose Defendants’ Motion by offering his own testimony,

that of his brother, and that of any other witness who was present in opposition to Defendants’ Motion.

Furthermore, the questions to be asked of Defendant McPherson do not relate directly to what

happened at that time.

The questions to be asked of Defendant McPherson at the additional one-hour deposition have

little if any bearing on the vicarious liability of the other Defendants. Defendant McPherson has

answered questions regarding his training, indicating his memory is limited. (Motion for Extension,

Ex. A at 9.) At best, the questions bear on his own state of mind regarding his training, and not

whether the other Defendants adequately trained, supervised, or disciplined him. The Court therefore

finds it unnecessary to extend the time for opposition as Plaintiff requests.

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01487-LAB-CAB Document 49 Filed 08/15/07 Page 2 of 3
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 - 06CV1487

In order to permit Plaintiff to file his opposition to Defendants’ Motion and in furtherance of

the policy of deciding cases on the merits, the Court will grant a short extension. Plaintiff shall file

his opposition to Defendants’ Motion no later than Monday, August 20, 2007. Defendants may file

their reply no later than Monday, August 27, 2007. The hearing on Defendants’ Motion is hereby

CONTINUED until Tuesday, September 4, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 14, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01487-LAB-CAB Document 49 Filed 08/15/07 Page 3 of 3