Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-cv-01211-PSF-CBS.
November 1, 2007
ORDER
This civil action comes before the court on: (1) "Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents from the Office of the Attorney General" (filed October 30, 2007) (doc. # 157); and (2) "Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment `and' Request for a Court Order on Plaintiff's First Motion Objection Filed Back on September 25, 2007" (filed October 30, 2007) (doc. # 158). Pursuant to the Order of Reference dated April 17, 2006 (doc. # 26) and the memorandum dated October 31, 2007 (doc. # 159), these matters were referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed the matters and the entire case file and is sufficiently advised in the premises.
Mr. Fogle asks the court to order Defendants to provide him copies of "their Memorandum to their summary judgment" and their "Reply Motion to Plaintiff [sic] Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment." First, the court's records do not show that Defendants filed a "Memorandum to their summary judgment." The "Memorandum" dated July 16, 2007 and identified on the court's docket sheet as doc. # 113 is an internal memorandum of the court, whereby District Judge Figa referred Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment to Magistrate Judge Shaffer. Second, Mr. Fogle's request for a copy of Defendants' "Reply Motion to Plaintiff Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment" is premature. Mr. Fogle has not allowed sufficient time for Defendants Reply (doc. # 151) to reach him through the U.S. Mail.
Mr. Fogle further objects to "Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment" (doc. # 143). On September 24, 2007, the court granted "Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment" (doc. # 143). ( See doc. # 145). Based on the issues raised in "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Combined Motion for Summary Judgment," the court further permitted Defendants to file their Reply on or before October 26, 2007. ( See doc. # 149). The Motion for Summary Judgment is now fully briefed. The court has not sustained any of Mr. Fogle's objections to the briefing schedule and need not entertain any more objections from Mr. Fogle regarding the briefing schedule that is now concluded.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. "Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents from the Office of the Attorney General" (filed October 30, 2007) (doc. # 157) is DENIED.
2. "Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment `and' Request for a Court Order on Plaintiff's First Motion Objection Filed Back on September 25, 2007" (filed October 30, 2007) (doc. # 158) is DENIED.