Opinion
2:21-cv-1592 KJM DB P
03-20-2023
EDWARD GOMEZ, Plaintiff, v. LADAN, Defendant.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendant acted with deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment when she failed to treat plaintiff's high blood pressure. Discovery closed in early October 2022. Dispositive motions were originally due December 30, 2022. (See ECF No. 23.) Defendant sought, and received, a significant extension of that deadline to March 15, 2023. (See ECF No. 28.) Defendant now seeks a second extension of time. (ECF No. 29.)
The basis for defendant's request is counsel's workload. Defendant's counsel sets out the work they have engaged in during the last several months. This court accepts counsel's representation that this other work has involved a good deal of time. That said, discovery closed on October 7. Defendant has thus had over five months to prepare a dispositive motion. Defendant's counsel does not explain why preparation of a dispositive motion in this case is particularly time-consuming.
This court finds good cause for an extension of time but not for the 61-day extension requested by defendant. This court will give defendant an additional thirty days. No further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 29) is granted in part. Within thirty days of the filed date of this order, defendant shall file any dispositive motion.