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 The bankruptcy estate of Michael D. Burch is also a

plaintiff in this action because Burch’s claims became assets of

that estate when he filed bankruptcy on September 27, 2001. (See

March 16, 2004 Mem. & Order at 2 n.2). 

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MICHAEL D. BURCH and THE

BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF MICHAEL

D. BURCH,

NO. CIV. S-04-0038 WBS GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, LARRY VANDERHOEF,

GREG WARZECKA, PAM GILLFISHER, ROBERT FRANKS, and

LAWRENCE SWANSON,

Defendants.

----oo0oo---- 

Plaintiffs bring claims against defendants for

violations of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §

1983 based on allegations that defendants terminated plaintiff

Michael D. Burch1 from his position as head wrestling coach at

the University of California at Davis (“UCD”) because he opposed

defendants’ sex discrimination against female athletes and

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 101 Filed 07/25/05 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

27

28

2

publicly advocated on the athletes’ behalf. 

Defendants have filed two separate motions for summary

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Procedure 56(f), plaintiffs request that the

court (1) delay ruling on defendants’ motions for summary

judgment so that plaintiffs can obtain outstanding discovery

necessary to adequately oppose defendants’ motions; (2) reopen

deposition discovery so that plaintiffs can conduct depositions

relating to newly produced documents, witnesses, and information;

and (3) modify the scheduling order in this case so that

plaintiffs can complete the requested discovery and then have

sufficient time to respond to defendants’ motions.

Rule 56(f) states that

[s]hould it appear from the affidavits of a party

opposing [a] motion [for summary judgment] that the

party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit

facts essential to justify the party’s opposition, the

court may refuse the application for judgment or may

order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained

or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or

may make such other order as is just.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(emphasis added). 

Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and affidavits and

considered the arguments and statements therein, the court finds

that plaintiffs cannot present facts essential to justify their

opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment, and

accordingly the court HEREBY ORDERS that:

(1) within 10 days from the date of this order,

defendants shall produce the documents requested in plaintiffs’

motion to compel, filed May 31, 2005; 

(2) the discovery deadline in this case is extended to

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 101 Filed 07/25/05 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

27

28

3

August 26, 2005;

(3) plaintiffs may take the depositions of Ron Silva,

John Kirkwood, and any other witnesses whose testimony might be

relevant to any documents produced or discovery obtained

hereafter;

(4) defendants’ motions for summary judgment are DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, subject to being renewed after the completion

of discovery; 

(5) the deadline for filing motions in this case is

EXTENDED to October 10, 2005;

(6) the final pretrial conference previously set for

August 1, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED AND RESET for December 5,

2005 at 9:00 a.m.; and

(7) the trial date previously set for September 27,

2005 at 9:00 a.m. is, VACATED AND RESET for January 24, 2006 at

9:00 a.m.

DATED: July 22, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 101 Filed 07/25/05 Page 3 of 3