Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01208/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01208-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXANDRA FERREIRA DA SILVA, et 

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HEIDI C. MORGAN

Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-01208-DJC-CKD (PS)

ORDER

Plaintiff proceeds pro se and with limited purpose appointed counsel appointed to 

propound discovery and perform related tasks at counsel’s discretion. (See ECF No. 77.) Filing

pro se, plaintiff filed a “Petition for Extension of Time to Review Deposition Transcriptions, and 

[for] Complete Nullification of the First Deposition.” (ECF No. 88.) The court finds plaintiff may 

bring such a motion pro se even though she is represented by limited purpose counsel. However, 

to the extent plaintiff requests relief from the court through this filing, it is a motion within the 

meaning of the local rules and is deficiently filed because it is not noticed for a hearing as 

required by Local Rule 230(b).

To the extent plaintiff requests an extension of time to review deposition transcripts, the 

court notes plaintiff indicates that portion of her request is unopposed by defendant’s counsel as 

to a time period of 30 days for review of the deposition transcripts. (See ECF No. 88 at 2.) On the 

Case 2:21-cv-01208-DJC-CKD Document 89 Filed 10/18/24 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

court’s own motion, the court grants plaintiff an extension of time for review of the deposition 

transcripts at issue, to the extent that plaintiff may take 30 days, total, for such review.

To the extent plaintiff requests nullification of the first deposition, the court will not 

consider the request unless the motion is re-noticed in compliance with Local Rule 230(b) with a 

hearing date before the undersigned.

1 The undersigned generally hears civil motions on 

Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. The next available date and time for proper notice, and to allow for the 

briefing schedule set forth in Local Rule 230, is December 4, 2024.

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Sua sponte, the court grants plaintiff an extension of time to review the deposition 

transcripts at issue to the extent that plaintiff may take 30 days, total, for such review.

2. Otherwise, plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 88), as filed, is deficient and will not be heard 

unless it is re-noticed in compliance with Local Rule 230(b), with a hearing date on 

the motion calendar of the undersigned. If plaintiff does not re-notice the motion in 

compliance with the Local Rule 230(b) within 14 days, then the motion will be denied 

without prejudice.

Dated: October 18, 2024

8

ferr21cv1208.r30.depo

1 The court expresses no opinion on the merits of such a motion, should plaintiff choose to renotice it.

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01208-DJC-CKD Document 89 Filed 10/18/24 Page 2 of 2