Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02405/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02405-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ELLIS JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02405-JD 

ORDER 

Re: Dkt. No. 227

The Court has received plaintiff’s request for another extension of the expert disclosures 

deadlines and to extend the deadline for responding to defendant’s motion for partial summary 

judgment. Dkt. No. 227. Defendants oppose the first request. The Court grants in part and denies 

in part the requests. 

The Court denies plaintiff’s request to extend the time to respond to the summary 

judgment motion. This motion has been pending since September 23, 2015, and the deadline for 

plaintiff to respond to the motion has already been extended twice. Dkt. Nos. 207, 216. Plaintiff 

says that he should not have to respond to the motion until “discovery is over” or has in hand 

discovery “he has a legal right to.” But as the parties are aware, fact discovery in this matter 

closed on November 13, 2015. See Dkt. No. 216. And although plaintiff has a few lingering 

motions to compel pending, he has not demonstrated any link between the allegedly outstanding 

information and his response to the motion. Nor has Johnson explained how the expert report he 

seeks on his “medical records” from a “shoulder doctor” could possibly impact his response to the

partial summary judgment motion, which is narrowly focused on the single issue of whether the 

officers had cause to arrest plaintiff Johnson on January 30, 2012. See Dkt. No. 219; Dkt. No. 

188. Plaintiff has not identified any “substantial harm or prejudice that would occur” if the Court 

does not grant a third extension, as required under local rules. See Civil L.R. 6-3(a)(3). 

Case 3:13-cv-02405-JD Document 236 Filed 12/22/15 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

Consequently, the Court denies plaintiff’s request for a third extension to respond to the summary 

judgment motion. 

The Court grants plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to submit an expert report. 

Although defendant points out that the expert discovery deadline has already been extended three 

times to accommodate plaintiff, its objection to the extension appears based mainly on a projected 

overlap with pre-trial deadlines. Dkt. No. 228. While that concern is certainly valid, the Court

needs to continue the trial date in this case to accommodate another matter. The Court vacates the 

pre-trial conference and trial dates in this matter, resets the pre-trial conference date to April 6, 

2016 at 3:00 p.m., and sets the trial date on April 25, 2016. Given this extension of the overall 

schedule, the Court grants plaintiff’s request to serve his expert report by January 21, 2016. If 

plaintiff meets that date, defendant may serve a responsive report by February 4, 2016. This is the 

last extension that will be granted for plaintiff’s expert report. 

The Court has a new Standing Order for Civil Jury Trials available on the Court’s website 

that sets out revised deadlines for pretrial matters. The parties should read this standing order 

before planning their pre-trial filings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02405-JD Document 236 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 2