Stevenson v. Beard

.

.

7 .

8 "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA || STEVIE J. STEVENSON, Case No.: 16-cv-3079-TWR-RBM _—-Plaintitt ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S || V. . ‘EX PARTE. APPLICATION TO || serrREY BEARD, Ph.D. etal, MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON 15 Defendants.| INJUNCTION OR TEMPORARY 16 oo RESTRAINING ORDER q7 [Does. 126, 127] 19 On October 29, 2020, Defendants Jeffrey Beard, Ph.D., et al. (collectively ||“Defendants”) filed an ex parte application to modify the briefing schedule as to Plaintiff ||Stevie J. Stevenson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for preliminary injunction or temporary ||restraining order (“Ex Parte Application”). (Doc. 127.) Pursuant to the Court’s October || 14, 2020 briefing schedule (“Briefing Schedule”), Defendants had until October 30, 2020 ||to file any opposition to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction or temporary ||restraining order. (Doc. 126.) This is Defendants’ first request for an extension of time tc 26 an opposition. (Doc. 127.) Defendants requests a thirty-day continuance of the || Briefing Schedule. (/d. at 1.) □

1 The undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures and Chambers’ Rules require that any request to continue a scheduling order deadline must be made in writing no less than seven ||(7) calendar days before the affected date. Defendants’ Ex Parte Application was not || timely filed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants allege good cause exists to grant 5 continuance. (Doc. 127 at 1-2.) Defendants allege good cause exists, because the || Deputy Attorney General assigned to this case abruptly left the office on October 23, 2020.

7 ||(d. at 1.) Defendants request a continuance to give the office sufficient time to assign a ||new attorney to the case, and for that attorney to familiarize himself/herself with the case 9 file a response to Plaintiffs motion. (/d.) Defendants also contend that a continuance | would not prejudice Plaintiff, and Defendants would not object to similar requests by || Plaintiff as needed. (/d. at 2.)

12 A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and with ||the judge’s consent. FED. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, || Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating, “the focus of [the good cause] inquiry is 15 upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.”). The sudden departure of an || attorney one week before a response deadline is both unforeseeable and sufficient to find || good cause here. Under the circumstances, a continuance allows Defendants additional ||time to assign a new attorney, become familiar with the case, and file a response. As such, || good cause exists to grant a continuance of time.

20 Accordingly, the Ex Parte Application is GRANTED. The October 14, 2020 || Briefing Schedule (Doc. 126) is hereby AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 22 Defendants must file any opposition to Plaintiffs Motion on or before December 2, ||2020. Plaintiff may file any reply brief on or before December 23, 2020. Upon completion || of the briefing, the Court will take the matter under submission without an oral argument || pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and no personal appearances will be required.

26 Counsel is ADMONISHED to comply with the undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures and ||Chambers’ Rules with respect to any future motion and/or ex parte application.

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 || DATE: November 3, 2020 Cc 4 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MGNTENEGRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE