Opinion
No. CIV S-06-1715 MCE EFB PS.
July 2, 2007
ORDER
On June 13, 2007, plaintiff filed a request to extend the discovery deadline, which expired on April 13, 2007. Plaintiff requests that discovery remain open so "everything goes smooth" in his efforts to conduct a Rule 45 inspection of the office of one of defendant's employees. Plaintiff refers to a subpoena, purportedly issued on June 11, 2007, authorizing him to conduct this inspection.
At the time plaintiff made the request, the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment had been taken under submission and were pending before the court. Plaintiff cites no rule or authority justifying an order re-opening discovery or allowing supplemental briefing on his already submitted motion for summary judgment.
Even construing plaintiff's request as timely motion made pursuant to Rule 56(f), his request must be denied. In order to succeed on a Rule 56(f) motion, the movant must show diligence in pursuing discovery previously, and must show how more discovery might preclude summary judgment. Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 1998). The record shows that plaintiff has been uncooperative during discovery and has had to be repeatedly advised to read and abide by applicable rules. Plaintiff also has failed to show how more discovery might preclude summary judgment. Accordingly, plaintiff's untimely request to conduct additional discovery is denied.
SO ORDERED.