Stevenson v. Beard ( 2020 )

1 . 4 5 . 7 . 8 "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || STEVIE J. STEVENSON, Case No.: 16-cv-3079-TWR-RBM _—-Plaintitt ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 || V. . ‘EX PARTE. APPLICATION TO 14 || serrREY BEARD, Ph.D. etal, MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON 15 Defendants.| INJUNCTION OR TEMPORARY 16 oo RESTRAINING ORDER q7 [Does. 126, 127] 18 19 On October 29, 2020, Defendants Jeffrey Beard, Ph.D., et al. (collectively 20 ||“Defendants”) filed an ex parte application to modify the briefing schedule as to Plaintiff 21 ||Stevie J. Stevenson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for preliminary injunction or temporary 92 ||restraining order (“Ex Parte Application”). (Doc. 127.) Pursuant to the Court’s October 93 || 14, 2020 briefing schedule (“Briefing Schedule”), Defendants had until October 30, 2020 24 ||to file any opposition to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction or temporary 25 ||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 27 || Briefing Schedule. (/d. at 1.) □ 28 1 The undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures and Chambers’ Rules require that any 2 request to continue a scheduling order deadline must be made in writing no less than seven 3 ||(7) calendar days before the affected date. Defendants’ Ex Parte Application was not 4 || 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 6 || 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 8 ||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 10 | would not prejudice Plaintiff, and Defendants would not object to similar requests by 11 || Plaintiff as needed. (/d. at 2.) 12 A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and with 13 ||the judge’s consent. FED. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 14 || 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 16 || attorney one week before a response deadline is both unforeseeable and sufficient to find 17 || good cause here. Under the circumstances, a continuance allows Defendants additional 18 ||time to assign a new attorney, become familiar with the case, and file a response. As such, 19 || good cause exists to grant a continuance of time. 20 Accordingly, the Ex Parte Application is GRANTED. The October 14, 2020 21 || Briefing Schedule (Doc. 126) is hereby AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 22 Defendants must file any opposition to Plaintiffs Motion on or before December 2, 23 ||2020. Plaintiff may file any reply brief on or before December 23, 2020. Upon completion 24 || of the briefing, the Court will take the matter under submission without an oral argument 25 || 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 27 ||Chambers’ Rules with respect to any future motion and/or ex parte application. 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || DATE: November 3, 2020 Cc 4 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MGNTENEGRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28