Jones v. McElroy

Full title: RODNEY WAYNE JONES, Plaintiff, v. C. W. McELROY, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 22, 2015

2:13-cv-1375 GEB CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2015)

Opinion

RODNEY WAYNE JONES, Plaintiff, v. C. W. McELROY, et al., Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-1375 GEB CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. October 22, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         Before the court is defendants' motion for a thirty-day extension of time to complete plaintiff's deposition. (ECF Nos. 80 & 81.) Defendants request an additional four hours, in excess of the one-day, seven-hour limit, to complete the deposition under Rule 30(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed an opposition (ECF No. 83), and attorney Janine K. Jeffery, who represents three of the defendants, has filed a declaration in reply (ECF No. 87).

         Good cause appearing, defendants Lobato, Sharp, Jochim, Perez, Sullivan, McElroy, Dingfelder, and Lish's motion for extension of time (ECF Nos. 80 & 81) is granted. Defendants are granted additional time, up to and including thirty days from the date of this order, to complete plaintiff's deposition. Defendants are also allowed an additional four hours, in addition to the seven-hour limit under the Federal Rules, to examine plaintiff during his deposition.

         In light of this and other pending discovery issues, the dispositive motion deadline of October 30, 2015 (ECF No. 46) is hereby VACATED, to be reset at a later date.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.