Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02682/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02682-13/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID K. MEHL; LOK T. LAU;

FRANK FLORES,

No. 2:03-cv-2682-MCE-KJM

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LOU BLANAS, individually and

in his official capacity as

SHERIFF OF COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO; et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiffs’ Amended Ex

Parte Application for An Order Extending Time and Leave of Court

to File Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

filed on November 5, 2007, and Defendants’ opposition thereto. 

Plaintiffs initially requested a six-month extension of the

deadline for filing an opposition to Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment based on unavailability of co-counsel and the

need for additional general discovery. 

///

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE -KJM Document 146 Filed 11/07/07 Page 1 of 3
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

The Pretrial Scheduling Order required Plaintiffs’ opposition to

be filed not later than November 2, 2007.

The Court denied that request and ordered Plaintiffs to file

their opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment as required

by the Pretrial Scheduling Order.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment on November 2, 2007. Plaintiffs’ now request an

additional seven days to file a more fully briefed Opposition. 

Plaintiffs’ current application is based more specifically on the

unavailability of Plaintiffs’ expert witness and the fact that

the expert’s declaration will support much of Plaintiffs’ points

and authorities.

This Court finds the extension necessary for Plaintiff to

fully brief the issues raised in Defendants’ Motion. Defendants

do not assert they will suffer any prejudice based on this

extension and the Court finds that any prejudice to Defendants in

granting this brief extension is far outweighed by the prejudice

to Plaintiffs if they are not permitted to oppose the Motion for

Summary Judgment.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE -KJM Document 146 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is GRANTED. 

In order to allow full briefing on the issues, the hearing on

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is continued to

December 7, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. The parties are to file their

papers in accordance with the local rules based on the

December 7, 2007, hearing date.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: November 7, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE -KJM Document 146 Filed 11/07/07 Page 3 of 3