Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02945/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02945-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

16cv2945-GPC (NLS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARDO LUQUE-VILLANUEVA, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv2945-GPC (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART JOINT 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME

[ECF No. 34]

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to enlarge time to file a joint motion 

for determination of a discovery dispute and to enlarge fact discovery, expert discovery, 

and pre-trial motion dates. ECF No. 34. 

As to the discovery dispute deadline, the parties represent that Defendants have 

produced some documents to Plaintiffs after the Protective Order was issued. ECF No. 

34-1 at 4. The parties further represent that they are working together to resolve the 

remaining disputes and Defendants are searching for the documents that Plaintiffs 

requested. Id. at 5-6. The Court finds good cause to GRANT the motion to enlarge time 

to file a joint motion for discovery dispute from January 25, 2018 to March 2, 2018. The 

Court cautions the parties that this is the third extension that has been granted (see ECF 

Case 3:16-cv-02945-GPC-NLS Document 36 Filed 01/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16cv2945-GPC (NLS)

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

Nos. 29, 31) and any further requests are likely to be denied barring extraordinary 

circumstances. 

As to the request to enlarge fact discovery cutoff, expert discovery dates, and the 

pre-trial motions deadline, the Court DENIES the request. This is the third request to 

enlarge pre-trial dates, the previous two which the Court granted. ECF Nos. 24, 29. The 

parties generally state that more time is needed due to the delay in getting the discovery

related to the discovery dispute, but fail to explain why they are unable to meet the 

specific deadlines. Thus, the Court finds that the parties have not shown good cause to 

extend the deadlines at this time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02945-GPC-NLS Document 36 Filed 01/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2