Holmes

Holmes v. Estock

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 28, 20223:16-cv-02458California2,223 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 Case No.: 16cv2458-MMA(BLM) CHARLES HOLMES,

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN

v. DISCOVERY FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE

DR. ESTOCK, et al., [ECF No. 178] Defendants. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s October 11, 2022 Motion to Reopen Discovery for a Limited purpose [ECF No. 178 (“Mot.”)] and Defendants’ October 18, 2022 opposition to the motion [ECF No. 179 (“Oppo.”)]. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff, who was proceeding at the time, initiated the instant matter on September 28, 2016 when he filed a complaint alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care and negligence. ECF No. 1. On January 30, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for substitution of attorney allowing Mr. Brian A. Vogel to substitute in as counsel for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.