SMITH v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CV 11-10666 DDP (PJWx). (2015)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20150401c38
Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 31, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2015
Summary: ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION AND CONTINUING DATES [Dkt. No. 137] DEAN D. PREGERSON , District Judge . Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the two named entities and various "Does" for alleged civil rights violations and related claims. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 78.) Plaintiff has now identified one of the "Doe" defendants, a Los Angeles County employee named Barbara Fryer. (Dkt. No. 131.) Defendants now move for an extension of deadlines to allow Ms. Fryer an opportunity to conduct discovery
Summary: ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION AND CONTINUING DATES [Dkt. No. 137] DEAN D. PREGERSON , District Judge . Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the two named entities and various "Does" for alleged civil rights violations and related claims. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 78.) Plaintiff has now identified one of the "Doe" defendants, a Los Angeles County employee named Barbara Fryer. (Dkt. No. 131.) Defendants now move for an extension of deadlines to allow Ms. Fryer an opportunity to conduct discovery a..
More
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION AND CONTINUING DATES
[Dkt. No. 137]
DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the two named entities and various "Does" for alleged civil rights violations and related claims. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 78.) Plaintiff has now identified one of the "Doe" defendants, a Los Angeles County employee named Barbara Fryer. (Dkt. No. 131.) Defendants now move for an extension of deadlines to allow Ms. Fryer an opportunity to conduct discovery and file an answer, 12(b)(6) motion, and/or motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 137.) This motion is brought as an ex parte application because there is not sufficient time to bring a noticed motion before the discovery and motion-filing deadlines pass. (Id.)
The parties agree that discovery and motion-related dates must be continued. (Id.; Opp'n at 5:19-26.) They disagree only as to whether pretrial and trial dates should be continued. (Id. at 6.) However, in order to give adequate time for Ms. Fryer to file a motion for summary judgment, for the Court to rule on it, and for the parties to meaningfully prepare for trial in light of any summary judgment, the pretrial and trial dates must be continued. Although Plaintiff argues that Ms. Fryer could bring a summary judgment motion now, because her only defenses are purely legal ones, the Court is not prepared to make that determination without affording her an opportunity to respond to the complaint and conduct whatever discovery might be necessary to her defenses.
Therefore the scheduling order is modified as follows:
• Ms. Fryer shall have until April 18, 2015 to respond to the complaint.
• All discovery deadlines are continued to May 18, 2015.
• The settlement conference deadline is continued to May 29, 2015.
• The last day to file motions is continued to June 1, 2015.
• The proposed pretrial order deadline is continued to July 10, 2015.
• The FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE is continued to August 10, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.
• FOUR DAY JURY TRIAL is continued to August 18, 2015 at Case 2:11-cv-10666-DDP-PJW Document 142 Filed 03/31/15 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2668 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
