Bishop-McKean v. Washington Department of Corrections ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 RENEE BISHOP-MCKEAN, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-5416-JLR-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION 12 v. AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 13 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate 17 Judge David W. Christel. Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file 18 her cross-motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 115. 19 The Court recently denied the parties’ pending cross-motions for summary judgment as 20 moot and permitted the parties to file amended motions on or before November 26, 2021. Dkt. 21 110. On December 1, 2021, plaintiff submitted a letter stating that she could not meet the 22 deadline to file her cross-motion due to a lack of access to her legal materials. Dkt. 115. On 23 24 1 December 2, 2021, plaintiff filed her cross-motion. Dkt. 116. The Court therefore construes 2 plaintiff’s letter as a motion for leave to file her cross-motion after the deadline. 3 A court may modify a deadline for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Continuing pretrial 4 and trial dates is within the discretion of the trial judge. See King v. State of California, 5 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court find that good cause exists to permit plaintiff’s late 6 filing and therefore GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for an extension insofar as her cross motion will 7 be deemed timely filed. 8 The Court notes that plaintiff’s submission includes 60 pages of argument, including a 9 response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 116 at 1–54.6. While the Court 10 approves of the consolidation of the briefing on the parties’ cross-motions, plaintiff’s brief is 11 overlength: pursuant to LCR 7(e)(3), summary judgment motions and responses may be 24 pages 12 each—for a combined total of 48 pages. The Court will accept plaintiff’s overlength briefing, but 13 cautions plaintiff to be mindful of the Court’s page limits (including the 12-page limit for reply 14 memoranda) going forward. 15 Finally, the Court finds that the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment should be 16 considered together, and that efficiency would be served by a consolidated briefing schedule 17 providing for combined memoranda on the parties’ motions. See LCR 7(k) (the court may order 18 combined memoranda on cross-motions). The Court therefore sets forth below a schedule 19 consolidating the remaining briefing of the parties’ cross-motions, which also takes into account 20 the upcoming holidays. 21 The Court therefore ORDERS as follows: 22 (1) Plaintiff’s motion for extension (Dkt. 115) is GRANTED in that plaintiff’s late- 23 filed cross-motion for summary judgment shall be accepted; 24 1 (2) The noting date and briefing schedule on the parties’ cross-motions for summary 2 judgement is amended as follows: 3 (a) On or before January 3, 2022, defendants shall file a memorandum 4 combining their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment 5 and a response to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In light of 6 plaintiff’s overlength briefing, defendants’ combined memorandum may 7 be up to 48 pages; 8 (b) On or before January 7, 2022, plaintiff may file a reply in support of her 9 cross-motion for summary judgment, which may not exceed 12 pages; and 10 (c) The Clerk is directed to renote defendants’ amended motion for summary 11 judgment (Dkt. 112) and plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment 12 (Dkt. 116) for January 7, 2022. 13 14 Dated this 9th day of December, 2021. 15 A 16 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24