Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02682/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02682-12/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’ “Ex Parte

Application for An Order Extending Time to File Opposition to

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and the Need for

Discovery Is the Basis for Denial of the Motion,” filed on

October 26, 2007, and Defendants’ opposition thereto. For the

following reasons, Plaintiffs’ application is DENIED.

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE -KJM Document 135 Filed 10/31/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiffs request, under Local Rules 6-144 and 56-260(b),

“an additional four (6) [sic] month extension of time to oppose

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement and to conduct

discovery.” The crux of Plaintiffs’ application is that

Defendants, in supporting their Motion for Summary Judgment,

submitted declarations from witnesses who were not previously

disclosed to Plaintiffs and therefore Plaintiffs need additional

time to depose these witnesses and conduct any additional

discovery related thereto.

“[E]x parte applications for extension of time will not

ordinarily be granted.” L.R. 6-144(c). The ex parte application

must explain the reasons why a stipulation to extend time cannot

be obtained, as well as the reasons why an extension is

necessary. Id. The granting or denial of such an application is

left to the Court’s discretion. Id.

“If need for discovery is asserted as a basis for denial of

the motion [for summary judgment], the party opposing the motion

shall provide a specification of the particular facts on which

discovery is to be had or the issues on which discovery is

necessary.” L.R. 56-260.

Pursuant to the Pretrial Scheduling Order, discovery was to

conclude on April 9, 2007. The parties stipulated to extend the

discovery deadline to August 15, 2007 and to extend the date by

which dispositive motions be heard until February 15, 2008. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE -KJM Document 135 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for an additional four or six

months to conduct additional discovery and oppose the Motion for

Summary Judgment would also require an amendment of the Pretrial

Scheduling Order to accommodate full briefing. A Pretrial

Scheduling Order shall only be modified upon a showing of good

cause. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b).

Plaintiffs’ ex parte application fails to meet any of the

above requirements. This Court finds that Plaintiff was put on

notice, through documents and answers to special interrogatories,

of some or all of the witnesses who submitted declarations in

support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs

made no attempt to depose or seek discovery from any of these

individuals prior to the close of discovery. Plaintiffs made a

strategic decision not to depose these witnesses. The fact that

Plaintiffs now realize these witnesses have relevant information

is not good cause to amend the scheduling order, nor does it

explain why an extension is necessary, nor does it support denial

of the Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that more

discovery is necessary. Finally, to the extent Plaintiffs’

application is based on inadequate discovery responses, those

matters should have been dealt with by way of a motion to compel

prior to the close of discovery.

Plaintiffs also assert the trial schedule of associated

counsel as a basis for granting an extension to oppose the Motion

for Summary Judgment. Mr. Gorski states in his affidavit that

Mr. Karalash is unable to assist Mr. Gorksi in opposing the

motion because of Mr. Karalash’s trial schedule. 

///

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE -KJM Document 135 Filed 10/31/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Aside from the fact that this statement is unsubstantiated

hearsay, this Court finds that an attorney’s workload is not a

sufficient basis to grant an extension to oppose a properly-filed

Motion for Summary Judgment.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ex parte application is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE -KJM Document 135 Filed 10/31/07 Page 4 of 4