Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00336/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00336-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEREK THOMASON, an individual,

 Plaintiff,

 

 vs.

CITY OF FOWLER, FOWLER CITY

MANAGER DAVID ELIAS, an individual, 

POLICE CHIEF MICHAEL BRAND, an 

individual, and TEN UNKNOWN NAMED 

EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF FOWLER, 

 

 Defendants. 

 

1:13-cv-0336 AWI BAM

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE 

PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 56(d)

Doc # 54

In this action for damages, defendants City of Fowler, et al. (“Defendants”) moved for 

summary judgment on April 16, 2014. On April 23, 2014, plaintiff Derek Thomason 

(“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte request for extension of time to file an opposition pursuant to Rule 

56(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56(d)(2) permits a party opposing 

summary judgment to request additional time to “obtain affidavits or declarations or to take 

discovery” where doing so is necessary to the development of facts to oppose the motion. On 

November 14, 2013, the court issued an amended scheduling order, Docket Number 43, which 

set the cutoff date for non-expert discovery for July 10, 2014, and the cutoff date for expert 

discovery for July 10, 2014. Defendants contend that, even though Plaintiff has scheduled 

critical depositions for dates preceding the cutoff dates, the court may nonetheless deny 

Case 1:13-cv-00336-AWI-BAM Document 56 Filed 05/14/14 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-

A

Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d)(2) request if Plaintiff has been dilatory in scheduling and conducting 

depositions. Defendants contend Plaintiff has been dilatory and Plaintiff denies the contention.

Being impacted as it is by one of the nation’s highest per-judge caseloads, the court has 

absolutely no interest in accelerating the conduct of proceedings and has no reason at all to deny 

a party the full range of time for discovery that is specifically granted to it pursuant to the court’s 

scheduling order.

It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s ex parte request for continuance under Rule 

56(d)(2) is GRANTED. The court hereby ORDERS that Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment, Document Number 52 is STRICKEN as untimely filed. Defendants may file any 

further motion for summary judgment on or after July 10, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00336-AWI-BAM Document 56 Filed 05/14/14 Page 2 of 2