ARC Students for Liberty Campaign v. Los Rios Community College District

Filing 78

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 05/11/10 DENYING without prejudice 56 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Williams, D)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, BRICE W. HARRIS, Chancellor, in his official capacity; WILLIAM V. KARNS, Vice Chancellor in his capacity, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. / On April 1, 2010, this court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) because ORDER ARC STUDENTS FOR LIBERTY CAMPAIGN, an unincorporated association, NO. CIV. S-09-2446 LKK/GGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA defendants raised significant issues that they require discovery to adequately oppose plaintiff's motion. Dkt. No. 49. On March 11, 2010, this court issued a scheduling order. Dkt. No. 53. Pursuant to this order, all discovery shall be completed by June 7, 2010, all motions to compel discovery shall be heard by the magistrate judge by May 7, 2010, and all law and motion matters 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 shall be heard by this court by August 7, 2010. On April 15, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, which is set to be heard on May 24, 2010. This motion indicated that plaintiff has responded to all of defendant's discovery requests and, accordingly, plaintiffs argue that this court can hear this motion before the close of discovery. Dkt. No. 56. On May 10, 2010, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 69. This opposition indicated that defendants are still conducting discovery. Specifically, defendants note several outstanding discovery disputes as well as the need for defendants to depose certain individuals. For the foregoing reasons, the court orders that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 56, is denied, without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file its motion for summary judgment after the close of discovery.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 1 May 11, 2010. The court notes that no motions to compel have been filed by defendants despite defendants' contention that plaintiff has not properly responded to their requests. Because all motions to compel must have been heard by May 7, 2010, defendants may not file a motion to compel without amending the scheduling order. As indicated by the court in the scheduling order, "the Status (pretrial scheduling) Order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause. . . . Agreement by the parties pursuant to stipulation does not constitute good cause. Nor does the unavailability of witnesses or counsel, except in extraordinary circumstances, constitute good cause." (emphasis in original). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?