Opinion
1:20-cv-00725-SKO (PC)
02-08-2023
BRYAN WEBB, Plaintiff, v. P. LLAMAS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLIATION TO MODIFY THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION FILING DEADLINE
(DOC. 49)
SHEILA K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Bryan Webb is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 6, 2022, this Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 41.)
On June 7, 2022, the Court issued an Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order, extending the deadlines for the completion of all discovery and for the filing of dispositive motions. (Doc. 43.)
On November 3, 2022, the Court granted Defendants' motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order (Doc. 45), extending the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions from November 7, 2022, to January 6, 2023. (Doc. 46.)
On January 3, 2023, the Court granted Defendants' motion to modify the dispositive motion filing deadline, extending the deadline from January 6, 2023 to February 6, 2023. (Doc. 48.)
On February 6, 2023, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Application to Modify the Order Extending Time by 7-Days to File Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 49.)
II. DISCUSSION AND ORDER
Defendants seek a seven-day extension of the February 6, 2023, deadline for the filing of dispositive motions. (Doc. 49 at 1.) Defense counsel's supporting declaration indicates she has completed preparation of the motion for summary judgment, but one of the five supporting declarations remains unexecuted. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.) The declaration was provided to the declarant on January 31, 2023, for signature; when it was not returned by February 2, 2023, counsel's paralegal called declarant regarding its status. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Declarant did not respond, and a follow-up message was sent to declarant's personal email. (Id.) On February 6, 2023, having received no response from declarant, counsel's paralegal called again. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Declarant's voicemail was not set up to accept messages. (Id.) The paralegal sent a text message, but again received no response. (Id.) Defense counsel also called declarant's cell phone and sent an email on February 6, 2023, but received no response. (Id.) Defense counsel and her paralegal also sent emails to the litigation coordinator at California State Prison, Corcoran, seeking assistance in obtaining the signed declaration. (Id. at ¶ 7.) In both the February 2nd and 6th emails, the filing applicable deadline was referenced, and a status requested. (Id.) At the time of the filing of the ex parte application, defense counsel had not heard back from either the declarant or the litigation coordinator regarding the outstanding declaration. (Id.) Defense counsel states neither she nor her paralegal had been made aware that declarant would be unavailable. (Id. at ¶ 8.)
Despite counsel's best efforts, the declaration has not yet been received. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Counsel states that, to the best of her knowledge, a seven-day extension of time would not significantly delay this action or materially prejudice Plaintiff “who is paroled and did not oppose Defendants' earlier motion to modify the dispositive motion filing deadline.” (Id. at ¶ 10.) Counsel also states her request is not brought for an improper purpose. (Id.)
Good cause appearing, Defendants' ex parte application (Doc. 49) is GRANTED. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended from February 6, 2023, to February 13, 2023. No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.