Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01681/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01681-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

DEMETRIUS L. HARVEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 07-01681 SBA

ORDER 

[Docket No. 66]

REQUEST BEFORE THE COURT

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Ex Parte Motion for Continuance of Discovery.” [Docket No.

66]. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.

On September 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to extend the discovery deadline

from September 2, 2008 to 45 days from filing the motion. Plaintiff’s reason for extending the

discovery deadline is that he believes he has not received documents he has already requested and

needs “other discovery to utilize during depositions of defendants and other individuals who are

involved in this case.” [¶[¶ 6-7]. 

Plaintiff’s motion is denied for three reasons. First, the motion is untimely. Plaintiff filed

the motion after the discovery cut-off date of September 2, 2008. Second, Plaintiff has not complied

with the local rule governing ex parte motions. Local Rule 7-10 requires a party to: (1) state the

“statute, Federal Rule, local rule or Standing Order” that authorizes filing a motion without notice to

the opposing party in the circumstances; and (2) show he has complied with the applicable

provisions allowing the party to approach the Court on an ex parte basis. Plaintiff has not shown

good cause for an ex parte motion. Third, Plaintiff has not shown good cause for prolonging the

discovery period. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows a schedule to be” modified only

for good cause and with the judge's consent.”

Defendant, although never served with the motion, nevertheless filed an opposition to the

motion noting the procedural defects discussed above, as well as opposing it on the merits. [Docket

Case 4:07-cv-01681-SBA Document 70 Filed 09/15/08 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

No. 68]. Defendants state that substantial discovery has taken place within the deadline. Defendant

responded to Plaintiff’s two requests for production in January and July 2008. Defendant responded

to five sets of Requests for Admission. Defendant deposed the plaintiff in Fresno, CA within the

discovery period. Defendant further states Plaintiff has all of the documents which it will rely upon

in bringing its motion for summary judgment. Finally, Defendant’s ability to bring a dispositive

motion by the hearing date on October 21, 2008, will be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s last minute request

to extend the discovery period. 

Defendant opposes the motion. [¶¶ 3,6, 7-8, 12]. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Ex Parte Motion for Continuance of Discovery. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 15, 2008 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01681-SBA Document 70 Filed 09/15/08 Page 2 of 2