Smith v. Reinke et al, No. 1:2012cv00030 - Document 49 (D. Idaho 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Continue Trial 44 is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

Download PDF
Smith v. Reinke et al Doc. 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO RANDOLPH SMITH, Case No. 1:12-cv-00030-BLW Plaintiff, v. BRENT REINKE and JOHANNA SMITH, Defendants. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION The Court has before it defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial. (Dkt. 44). For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Randolph Smith is a deaf prisoner at the Idaho State Correctional Institute. He has sued officials at Idaho’s Department of Corrections under the American Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Smith alleges that defendants violated his rights under these acts by denying his request to use a videophone MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com to communicate with friends and relatives. Trial is scheduled to begin on January 20, 2015. Defendants ask that trial be rescheduled for the spring of 2015. ANALYSIS Whether to grant a continuance is entrusted to the trial court’s discretion. See Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 961 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district court’s decision regarding a continuance is given great deference, ‘and will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of [the court’s] discretion.’” (citation omitted)). The factors the trial court should use in exercising its discretion include determining the extent to which granting a continuance will inconvenience the Court and the opposing party, as well as the moving party’s diligence in preparing its case for trial. See United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th Cir. 1985). Upon considering these factors, the Court concludes that a continuance is not warranted. There is sufficient time for defense counsel to prepare for trial, despite the relatively recent substitution of defense counsel Leslie Hayes. Further, as the plaintiff points out, this litigation has been pending for nearly three years, and it is time to bring the matter to trial. As for defendant’s request to reopen discovery, the Court does not find that they have established the necessary “good cause” to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). Lastly, the Court declines plaintiff’s invitation to rule on the pending motion in limine (Dkt. 43) before ruling on this motion to continue. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial (Dkt. 44) is DENIED. DATED: October 24, 2014 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.