Free Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Deputy Warden, et al., 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00323-FJM Document 82 Filed 12/01/2005 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gerald Byerly, Plaintiff, vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-04-0323-PHX-FJM ORDER

It appearing to the court that we are nearing the date set for trial, IT IS ORDERED withdrawing the reference of this case to the magistrate judge for all purposes. Before the court is Defendant Schriro's Motion to Strike, or Alternatively a Motion for Enlargement of Time. (doc. 72). Specifically, defendant contends that the affidavit of plaintiff's expert should be stricken because it fails to provide the factual basis for the expert's opinions, in violation of Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. We will take the Motion to Strike under advisement, and instead will grant defendant's alternative motion for an extension of time to file a Reply in support of her motion for summary judgment. We deny defendant's request to extend the filing deadline by 120 days, however, because that date is well past the February 14, 2006 trial date. Instead, the Reply shall be due no later than December 20, 2005. The Reply

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

should contain a discussion of the exhaustion of administrative remedies issue, as well as the underlying substantive issues presented in the case. IT IS ORDERED, GRANTING in part Defendant's Alternative Motion for Enlargement until December 20, 2005 (doc. 72). The Motion to Strike shall be taken under advisement (doc. 72). DATED this 30th day of November, 2005.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00323-FJM Document 82 Filed 12/01/2005 Page 2 of 2