From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Smyers

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Aug 6, 2015
2:12-cv-2868 MCE AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015)

Opinion


WALTER HOWARD WHITE, Plaintiff, v. SMYERS, et al., Defendants. No. 2:12-cv-2868 MCE AC P United States District Court, E.D. California. August 6, 2015

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff has filed a motion, ECF No. 159, seeking additional time to file and serve his request for reconsideration of this court's order filed July 14, 2015, see ECF No. 153. Plaintiff has also filed a motion, ECF No. 160, for extension of time to file and serve a supplemental brief in accordance with the court's order filed July 14, 2015, see ECF No. 153 at 5. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 159, for extension of time to file to file and serve his request for reconsideration of this court's order filed July 14, 2015 order, is granted.

2. Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 160, for extension of time to file a supplemental brief in accordance with this court's order filed July 14, 2015, is granted.

As this court previously circumscribed, "[a]ny further motion filed by plaintiff that requests additional discovery, responsive to this court's April 24, 2015 order [ECF No. 133], shall meet the [following] requirements, see ECF No. 153 at 4 n.3:

3. Plaintiff shall file and serve both matters on or before August 21, 2015. No further extensions of time will be granted.

4. Defendants may, but need not, file their respective responses to plaintiff's motions on or before September 4, 2015.

[A] separate statement (no more than five pages in length, with no attached exhibits or supplemental filings) that sets forth the following information, excluding any reference to plaintiff's further deposition: (a) whether the responding party seeks further discovery; (b) if so, a brief description of the intended discovery, including the intended recipient(s), and an explanation why the discovery was not previously propounded; and (c) the importance of the anticipated discovery to the facts and claims in this action.


Summaries of

White v. Smyers

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Aug 6, 2015
2:12-cv-2868 MCE AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015)
Case details for

White v. Smyers

Case Details

Full title:WALTER HOWARD WHITE, Plaintiff, v. SMYERS, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Aug 6, 2015

Citations

2:12-cv-2868 MCE AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015)