History
  • No items yet
midpage
Louen v. Twedt
1:04-cv-06556
E.D. Cal.
Mar 23, 2006
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW-SMS Document 89 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HOLLY LOUEN, ) No. CV-F-04-6556 REC SMS

) Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ) CITY OF FRESNO’S MOTION FOR vs. ) RECONSIDERATION OF THE ) COURT’S ORDER CONTINUING FRESNO POLICE OFFICER BRIAN ) ORAL ARGUMENT ON TWEDT; THE CITY OF FRESNO, ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CALIFORNIA, ) RECONSIDERATION TO APRIL

) 17, 2006.

Defendants. )

) (Doc. 88) )

On March 23, 2006, the Court issued an order (Doc. 87) continuing oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration to April 17, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. Later on March 23, Defendant City of Fresno (the “City”) filed a motion (Doc. 88) asking the Court to reconsider its decision to continue the matter.

The City argues that the continuance is improper on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly delayed and obstructed discovery efforts, that a continuance will impair Defendants’ ability to prepare for trial because the discovery deadline and

1

*2 Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW-SMS Document 89 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2 trial date are near, and that Plaintiff’s counsel has insufficiently demonstrated his ability to attend oral argument on its original date, March 27, 2006.

The Court is concerned about delaying discovery this close to trial. Consequently, if postponing oral argument does jeopardize Defendants’ ability to meet discovery deadlines or prepare for trial, the Court will entertain motions to alter the schedule accordingly.

The Court recognizes, however, the importance of Plaintiff’s counsel Kevin Little’s attendance at these proceedings. Furthermore, the Court is not in a position to second-guess his representations that he is unable to attend the hearing as originally scheduled.

Accordingly, the City’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order continuing oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration to April 17, 2006, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2006 810ha4 /s/ Robert E. Coyle UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case Details

Case Name: Louen v. Twedt
Court Name: District Court, E.D. California
Date Published: Mar 23, 2006
Docket Number: 1:04-cv-06556
Court Abbreviation: E.D. Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.