Court Opinion

ID: 9488146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:37:31.107137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:43.280753
License: Public Domain

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting:
I concur wholeheartedly in Judge Klein-feld’s and Judge Reinhardt’s dissents. I simply add an additional perspective to their excellent opinions.
The majority declines to decide whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying a continuance to allow the completion of discovery. It looks only to prejudice after trial.
I respectfully suggest it is important to a proper analysis and understanding of the district court’s role to decide whether the judge abused his discretion.1 Why do I think it important? Whether the movant is likely to suffer prejudice from the denial of a continuance is an element of the determination that the district judge should make in granting or denying the opportunity for further discovery. The district judge would abuse his discretion if he prejudiced the plaintiffs ability to prepare his case. In this case, the judge broke his own court’s rules by shortening the minimum time the parties are allowed for preparation. Prejudice should be presumed — the burden to rebut prejudice then, should be on the defendants.
By its own admission, the majority concedes “the necessity and propriety of the force used ... was the primary issue at trial.” (Maj. Op. p. 994, fn. 1.) The inability to depose the defendant-perpetrators as to their individual roles in the incident, what they perceived as to the roles of other defendants, why they did what they did when they did it, of course, was prejudicial.
The majority expresses its “unwilling[ness] to engage in ruminative speculation.” (Maj. Op. at 996.) May I suggest the majority’s narrow focus as to what is prejudice is the vice. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to perceive the prejudice that resulted from the *1007“rocket docket’s” application in this case. It takes no ruminative speculation to see it.

. I agree with the two dissents and the inference in the concurring opinion of Judge Canby (in which Judge D.W. Nelson concurs) that an abuse occurred.