Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05166/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05166-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL O’SHEA MYERS,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 5166 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER RE MOTION (DOCS 45, 46, 55)

AUGUSTO LOAIZA, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff has filed a request for an extension of time in which to complete

discovery. Plaintiff complains of delays in the processing of his legal mail. Plaintiff refers

generally to a request for interrogatory “that all defendants produce and permit Plaintiff

inspection and copying of the documents and/or inspection, photographing, testing of tangible

described forthcoming if and when this court deems at appropriate items medical records,

photos, dates and times of schedule and post.”

The court finds this description to be vague and overbroad. Plaintiff does not

identify any particular discovery in the control of any named individual defendant that he sought

by way of interrogatory or request for production of documents on a particular date. Vague

complaints of delay in the mail are insufficient. 

Further, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is pending. Plaintiff has

opposed the motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) governs continuance of the motion

Case 1:04-cv-05166-OWW -WMW Document 64 Filed 12/18/06 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

2

for summary judgment in order to conduct discovery. In order to prevail on a Rule 56(f) motion,

the party “must show (1) that they have set forth in affidavit form the specific facts that they

hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts sought exist, and (3) that these soughtafter facts are ‘essential’ to resist the summary judgment motion.” State of California v.

Campbell, 138 F.2d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). “In making a Rule 56(f) motion, a party opposing

summary judgment ‘must make clear what information is sought and how it would preclude

summary judgment.’” Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Garrett v.

City and County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1518 (9th Cir. 1987)). The burden is on the

party seeking to conduct additional discovery to put forth sufficient facts to show that the

evidence sought exists. Volk v. D. A. Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1416 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff has not met this standard. The discovery request noted above does not

include the specific facts that are essential to resist the summary judgment motion. The motion

does not link the requested discovery to specific claim s in the amended complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time in

which to complete discovery is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05166-OWW -WMW Document 64 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 2