ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

On February 28, 2014, Defendants Nangalama and Hale objected to this Court's January 31, 2014, Final Pretrial Order, ECF No. 80. Defendants request that the Court continue the March 31, 2014, trial date due to Defendant Hale's deteriorating health or, in the alternative, that it dismiss Hale from this action and proceed to trial against Defendant Nangalama. Def.'s Objections, ECF No. 86. Defendants also seek to augment their trial witness list to add a newly discovered trial witness. Id.

Defendants previously advised the Court that Hale's physical condition made it doubtful that he would attend the trial in this matter. Def.'s Pretrial Statement, July 15, 2013, ECF No. 79 at 10. However, Defendants now inform the Court that "Defendant Hale's health ha[s] further deteriorated and [that] he has been declared mentally incompetent by his treating physician." ECF No. 86 at 3. In support of their request for a continuance, Defendants submitted a partially redacted letter from that physician, Dinesh Mantri, M.D., which indicates that Hale was admitted to Oak River Rehab from the "acute hospital" on February 20, 2014. ECF No. 86-1 at 2. Dr. Mantri states that "[u]pon evaluation, [Hale] was declared incapable of understanding his rights, privileges, and informed consent." Id. Defendants now ask that trial be continued "[d]ue to . . . Hale's current inability to participate or cooperate in any way in his defense of the action." Id. Specifically, Defendants contend that Hale's due process rights are implicated by his current inability to participate in his defense. ECF No. 86 at 3. Pursuant to Judge Brennan's January 31, 2014 Pretrial Order, Plaintiff had fourteen days to respond to Defendants' February 28, 2014 objections. See ECF No. 80 at 15. Defendants' objections are currently unopposed.

The Court has substantial discretion to control its own calendar. Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 960-61 (9th Cir. 2001). The decision to grant or deny a continuance of trial lies well within that discretion. Rios-Barrios v. I.N.S., 776 F.2d 859, 862-863 (9th Cir. 1985). In assessing the need for a continuance, four factors are considered: (1) the requesting party's diligence in preparing his case for trial; (2) the need for the continuance; (3) whether granting the continuance will inconvenience the court and the opposing party, including its witnesses; and (4) the extent to which the party requesting the continuance will suffer harm as a result of the district court's denial. U.S. v. 2.61 Acres of Land, 791 F.2d 666, 670-71 (9th Cir. 1986). None of these factors is alone dispositive; absent a showing of prejudice to the requesting party, a district court's refusal to grant a continuance will not be disturbed on appeal. Id. at 671.

In light of counsel for Defendants' representations regarding Defendant Hale's deteriorating health, the Court will exercise its discretion to grant a continuance, but denies without prejudice Defendants' remaining requests.1 Although Defendants are simultaneously attempting to augment their witness list, their request for a continuance does not appear to be based on their lack of diligence in preparing the case for trial, but rather on Defendant Hale's health and inability to participate in his defense. At this time, the potential prejudice faced by Defendant Hale because of his inability to participate in any manner in his own defense outweighs the inconvenience to the Court and to Plaintiff. Thus, the March 31, 2014, jury trial in this matter, the Court's Supplemental Pretrial Order (including the filing dates therein), ECF No. 81, and the Court's February 21, 2014, Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, ECF No. 83, are VACATED. By separate order, this Court will set a new trial date, as well as new deadlines associated with that new trial date.2

However, because of the limited information provided to the Court with respect to Defendant Hale's condition and the uncertainty of whether Defendant Hale's condition is expected to improve within a reasonable period of time, the Court is unable to set that trial date with confidence on the current record. Accordingly, within thirty (30) days of the electronic filing of this order, Defendants are ordered to submit a status report as to Defendant Hale's condition and when Defendants expect that Defendant Hale will be able to participate in his defense.3 At that time, if it remains Defendants' contention that Defendant Hale is unable to participate in his defense, Defendants must also submit further documentation to establish Defendant Hale's condition and show cause as to why this case should not proceed to trial on the next available date, as well as supplemental briefing citing to relevant authority as to exactly how Defendant Hale's due process rights are implicated in this matter. Specifically, Defendants should address how and whether Defendant Hale's due process rights prevent the Court from proceeding with trial without his full or limited participation within a reasonable amount of time. Plaintiff may file an optional reply to Defendants' status report and supplemental briefing within twenty-one (21) days of Defendants' filing.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, ECF No. 83, for Plaintiff Danny Murphy Coston, CDCR inmate # D-86227, issued by this Court on February 21, 2014, is VACATED;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve by mail three (3) certified copies of this order on the Warden of Corcoran State Prison, P.O. Box 8800, Corcoran, California 93212-8309;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a courtesy copy of this order on the Out-To-Court Desk;

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send a courtesy copy of this Order by fax to the litigation coordinator of Corcoran State Prison at (559)-992-7372;

5. The March 31, 2014 jury trial in this matter and the Court's Supplemental Pretrial Order (including the filing dates therein), ECF No. 81, are VACATED;

6. Defendants are ORDERED to file a status report as to Defendant Hale's condition and supplemental briefing as outlined in this Order within thirty (30) days of the electronic filing of this order. Plaintiff may file an optional reply to Defendants' status report and supplemental briefing within twenty-one (21) days of Defendants' filing;

7. Defendants' requests to dismiss Defendant Hale, to augment their witness list, and for leave to submit an additional trial exhibit, ECF No. 89, are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants may (but are not required to) renew some or all three of these requests in a properly supported motion pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). If no renewed request is filed within thirty (30) days of the electronic filing of this order, these three requests will be denied with prejudice; and

8. Defendants' Motions in Limine and Objections to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits, ECF No. 88, are DENIED without prejudice. Defendants must refile these motions in accordance with the new deadlines that will be set by separate order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.