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 ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR AN EXTENSION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BRIAN PLASKON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF

KING COUNTY d/b/a VALLEY MEDICAL

CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0367RSL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s October 22, 2007 letter to the Court

(Dkt. #33). On June 18, 2007, the Court granted plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw, and

plaintiff is now proceeding pro se.

In his letter, plaintiff requests additional time to respond to defendants’ pending motion

for summary judgment, noted for November 2, 2007, to allow him time to obtain other counsel. 

Plaintiff, however, has not filed his request as a motion, despite the fact that the Court denied his

prior request for an extension in part because “all requests for relief from the Court must be

contained in a motion that complies with Local Rule 7. Plaintiff’s letter is not a motion, and he

did not serve it on defendants.” (Dkt. #27, denying plaintiff’s request to suspend the case

schedule). Despite the Court’s prior clear statement, plaintiff’s current request does not comply

Case 2:06-cv-00367-RSL Document 37 Filed 11/14/07 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 ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR AN EXTENSION - 2

with the Local Rules in any respect. It is not a motion, and plaintiff did not serve it on

defendants.

Even if the letter complied with the Local Rules, the Court would deny the request. 

Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew nearly five months ago, so plaintiff has had ample time to obtain

other counsel but has been unable to do so. There is no indication that he will be able to obtain

counsel if granted the thirty-day extension he seeks. 

Plaintiff also argues that he needs additional time to obtain “affidavits from out of state

witnesses.” To obtain a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) continuance, a plaintiff must make “(a) a timely

application which (b) specifically identifies (c) relevant information, (d) where there is some

basis for believing that the information sought actually exists.” See Employers Teamsters Local

Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Clorox Co., 353 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2004)

(internal quotation and citation omitted). The burden is on the party seeking additional

discovery to proffer sufficient facts to show that the evidence sought exists, and that it would

prevent summary judgment. Id. at 1129-1130. Plaintiff’s vague reference to “out of state

witnesses,” without stating who they are or what they will say, is insufficient. Finally, although

plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is both a physician and a licensed attorney. He appears fully

capable of representing himself.

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s request for an extension (Dkt. #33) is

DENIED.

DATED this 14th day of November, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00367-RSL Document 37 Filed 11/14/07 Page 2 of 2