Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02403/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02403-0/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

----oo0oo----

MARY C. ENGEL,

NO. CIV. S 03-2403 MCE KJM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

MICHAEL BARRY, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to

Continue the Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment,

presently set for August 22, 2005, along with Plaintiff’s

opposition thereto. Defendant’s request for continuance is

premised on the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

56(f), which permit the Court to continue a summary judgment

hearing if the opposing party demonstrates that additional

discovery is necessary to properly oppose the motion. The

Declaration of Jonathan B. Paul submitted in support of

Defendants’ application indicates that a continuance is necessary

Case 2:03-cv-02403-MCE -KJM Document 43 Filed 08/08/05 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

to permit the depositions of Plaintiff and her family, as

percipient witnesses to the incident underlying this lawsuit, to

take place. Mr. Paul states in that declaration that he believes

those depositions will provide support for Defendants’ opposition

to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Inasmuch as the

discovery deadline in this case does not expire until November

11, 2005, Defendants have ample time to obtain additional

depositions on a timely basis.

Because Defendants have shown good cause for continuing

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(f),

their ex parte request to continue the August 22, 2005 hearing is

GRANTED. The Motion is continued to November 14, 2005 at 9:00

a.m.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s opposition to the instant

ex parte application also purports to contain a request that

certain deposition subpoenas be quashed. Any such motion to

quash must be scheduled before the assigned magistrate judge

pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(1), and will accordingly not be

considered by this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 8, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02403-MCE -KJM Document 43 Filed 08/08/05 Page 2 of 2