Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00148/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00148-12/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

RONALD FOSTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0148 GEB JFM P

vs.

E. MERAZ, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the scheduling order filed in this action on July 28, 2006,

discovery was to be completed by November 17, 2006. On November 17, 2006, defendants filed

a request for an extension of time to file a motion to compel discovery responses pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 37. Therein, defendant Meraz represented that plaintiff had refused to answer several

questions at his deposition on November 15, 2006, and he sought the extension so that he could

obtain a transcript of the deposition proceedings to support his motion to compel. On December

18, 2006, defendant Meraz filed a proposed motion to compel.

As noted above, pursuant to the scheduling order filed in this action, all discovery

was to be completed by November 17, 2006. Although defendant had over three months in

which to notice plaintiff’s deposition, he conducted the deposition two days before the deadline

Case 2:05-cv-00148-GEB -JFM Document 60 Filed 06/13/07 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

2

for completion of discovery. That left no time to file a motion to compel discovery. The fact

that defendant decided to take the deposition at the end of the discovery period is not a sufficient

reason to justify extension of the discovery deadline set in this action. For this reason,

defendant’s motion for extension of time will be denied, as will defendant’s December 18, 2006

motion to compel. 

On January 12, 2007, defendant filed a request for an extension of time to file a

motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, the parties will be granted a period of

thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and serve motions for summary judgment.

Finally, on April 10, 2007, defendant filed a request to vacate the dates set in this

action for filing pretrial statements, for pretrial conference, and for jury trial. Good cause

appearing, defendant’s request will be granted.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s November 17, 2006 request for an extension of time is denied;

2. Defendant’s December 18, 2006 motion to compel is denied;

3. Defendants’ January 12, 2007 request for an extension of time to file a motion

for summary judgment is granted;

4. The parties are granted thirty days from the date of this order to file and serve

motions for summary judgment;

5. Defendants’ April 10, 2007 request to modify the scheduling order is granted;

6. The deadlines for filing dispositive motions and pretrial statements set in the

scheduling order filed July 28, 2006 are vacated;

7. The pretrial conference set for May 4, 2007 before the undersigned is vacated;

8. The jury trial set for July 24, 2007 before the Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

is vacated; and

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00148-GEB -JFM Document 60 Filed 06/13/07 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

3

9. The deadlines vacated herein will be reset, as appropriate, by subsequent order

of court.

DATED: June 13, 2007.

12

fost0148.o

Case 2:05-cv-00148-GEB -JFM Document 60 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 3