Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLY LOUEN, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

FRESNO POLICE OFFICER BRIAN )

TWEDT; THE CITY OF FRESNO, )

CALIFORNIA, )

 )

Defendants. )

)

) 

No. CV-F-04-6556 REC SMS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

CITY OF FRESNO’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF THE

COURT’S ORDER CONTINUING

ORAL ARGUMENT ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION TO APRIL

17, 2006.

(Doc. 88)

On March 23, 2006, the Court issued an order (Doc. 87)

continuing oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration to April 17, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. Later on March

23, Defendant City of Fresno (the “City”) filed a motion (Doc.

88) asking the Court to reconsider its decision to continue the

matter.

The City argues that the continuance is improper on the

grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly delayed and obstructed

discovery efforts, that a continuance will impair Defendants’

ability to prepare for trial because the discovery deadline and

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 89 Filed 03/23/06 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

trial date are near, and that Plaintiff’s counsel has

insufficiently demonstrated his ability to attend oral argument

on its original date, March 27, 2006. 

The Court is concerned about delaying discovery this close

to trial. Consequently, if postponing oral argument does

jeopardize Defendants’ ability to meet discovery deadlines or

prepare for trial, the Court will entertain motions to alter the

schedule accordingly.

The Court recognizes, however, the importance of Plaintiff’s

counsel Kevin Little’s attendance at these proceedings. 

Furthermore, the Court is not in a position to second-guess his

representations that he is unable to attend the hearing as

originally scheduled.

Accordingly, the City’s motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s order continuing oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration to April 17, 2006, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

810ha4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 89 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2