Filed: Jan. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE-NOTING MOTIONS DAVID W. CHRISTEL , Magistrate Judge . The District Court has referred this action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Currently pending before the Court are ICE Defendants' 1 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 90), Plaintiff's request in his Response for a stay on the determination of ICE Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 107), the Parties' "Stipulation and Proposed Order," which the Court treats as a Motion
Summary: ORDER RE-NOTING MOTIONS DAVID W. CHRISTEL , Magistrate Judge . The District Court has referred this action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Currently pending before the Court are ICE Defendants' 1 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 90), Plaintiff's request in his Response for a stay on the determination of ICE Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 107), the Parties' "Stipulation and Proposed Order," which the Court treats as a Motion P..
More
ORDER RE-NOTING MOTIONS
DAVID W. CHRISTEL, Magistrate Judge.
The District Court has referred this action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Currently pending before the Court are ICE Defendants'1 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 90), Plaintiff's request in his Response for a stay on the determination of ICE Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 107), the Parties' "Stipulation and Proposed Order," which the Court treats as a Motion Pursuant to LCR 37 (Dkt. 122), and Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Dkt. 133).2
District courts have "the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases." Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016). The Court has inherent power to control its docket "in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). The exercise of this power is left to the Court's discretion. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112, 1113 (9th Cir. 2005).
Here, ICE Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 90, and Plaintiff has requested the Court stay resolution of that Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), Dkt. 107, pp. 20-23. Plaintiff asks that the Court allow Plaintiff additional time for discovery before making a determination as to ICE Defendants' Motion. Dkt. 107, pp. 20-23. The Parties have now also filed a Motion Pursuant to LCR 37, Dkt. 122, and Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Seal, requesting the Court seal a video attached to Plaintiff's Counsel's declaration in support of the Motion Pursuant to LCR 37, Dkt. 133. Because all these motions pertain to discovery issues, the Court finds it beneficial and efficient to make a determination as to all of them at the same time.
Therefore, it is ORDERED:
The Clerk is directed to amend the title of the "Stipulation and Proposed Order" (Dkt.
122) on the docket. That Motion should now be titled "Motion Pursuant to LCR 37."
The Clerk is directed to re-note the ICE Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 90) and Motion Pursuant to LCR 37 (Dkt. 122) to January 11, 2019, the same day Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Dkt. 133) comes ready for consideration.
