Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01781/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01781-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 43:946 Complaint in Condemnation - Eminent Domain

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

1.41 ACRES OF LAND, more or less, situated

in the City of Alameda, Alameda County, State

of California, and THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its

Department of Parks and Recreation, and the

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-01781 WHA

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

MOTION TO CONTINUE 

DEADLINES AND HEARING

A November 2014 order invited the United States to file an early summary judgment

motion by mid-February 2015. The United States brought that motion. Defendants then filed

discovery letters and an “emergency motion” to continue pursuant to Rule 56(d) so the

undersigned judge granted a one-month continuance (Dkt. No. 65). Defendants then represented

in a submission, dated March 11, 2015, that “[b]ased on the United States’ anticipated schedule

for providing the outstanding discovery, Defendants should be able to file their summary

judgment oppositions on April 10” (Dkt. No. 73).

Now, defendants suddenly seek a second, one-month continuance so that they can review

the “thousands” of documents they requested from the United States. Defendants further

represent that the United States intends to produce more documents next week.

It is disappointing that both sides have not proceeded more expeditiously. Moreover, the

instant motion is so lacking in sworn support and specific details regarding the parties’ efforts that

it is hard to find good cause to grant it. Nevertheless, fact discovery does not close in this

eminent-domain action until May 29, and trial does not begin until October 2015. Accordingly,

Case 3:14-cv-01781-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to the following limited extent, defendants’ second Rule 56(d) motion is GRANTED. The deadline

for defendants to file an opposition brief is hereby continued from April 10 to APRIL 24 AT

NOON. The reply is due by APRIL 30 AT NOON. The April 30 hearing is hereby continued to

THURSDAY, MAY 14 AT 2:00 P.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-01781-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/06/15 Page 2 of 2