Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

HOWARD v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, CV 12-1068 DDP-JC. (2017)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20170316825 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE UNAVAILABLE WITNESS [Dkts. 176 & 177] DEAN D. PREGERSON , District Judge . Presently before the court are Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance of Trial Date Set for April 11, 2017 and Motion for Leave to Depose Unavailable Witnesses pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(4)(B), (C), (D), (E). Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the court GRANTS the Motion for Continuance, and continues the
More

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE UNAVAILABLE WITNESS

[Dkts. 176 & 177]

Presently before the court are Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance of Trial Date Set for April 11, 2017 and Motion for Leave to Depose Unavailable Witnesses pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(4)(B), (C), (D), (E). Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the court GRANTS the Motion for Continuance, and continues the trial date until July 18, 2017, and DENIES the Motion for Leave to Depose Unavailable Witnesses.

As to the continuance motion, Plaintiff explains that he will need additional time to prepare for trial while incarcerated and that the current trial date conflicts with a preexisting medical specialist appointment. (Dkt. 177 at 1.) Defendants have not filed any opposition to the continuation of the trial date. Having found sufficient good cause, the court GRANTS the Motion and continues the trial date until July 18, 2017.

As to the Motion for Leave to Depose, the court notes that discovery has been closed since November 13, 2015. (Dkt. 126.) In fact, the initial discovery cut-off was January 30, 2105, but the court continued this deadline twice during which time Plaintiff never served any deposition notices or subpoenas. Since the close of discovery, Plaintiff has filed numerous motions seeking discovery but that court has explained that there was no good cause to grant Plaintiff additional time for discovery given the numerous delays in the case and held that "no further continuance shall be granted" as to discovery. (Dkt. 146; see also Dkts. 144, 156, 159.) In the instant Motion, the court finds no reason to revise those prior determinations and again explains that it will not order any additional discovery in this case. Having found insufficient good cause, the court DENIES the Motion for Leave to Depose Unavailable Witnesses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer