Weeks v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 62

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/4/2016. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

TREVOR WEEKS,

9

Plaintiff

10
11

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1641 AWI JLT

v.

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

12

Defendant

(Doc. No. 60)

13
14
15

On January 11, 2016, Defendant filed a second summary judgment motion. Hearing on the

16

motion is set for February 29, 2016. On February 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue or

17

deny Defendants’ motion under Rule 56(d). See Doc. No. 59.1 Also on February 1, 2016,

18

Defendant filed a reply. The reply notes that Plaintiff’s opposition is untimely pursuant to a

19

scheduling order that had previously been issued by the Court. See Doc. No. 60. The reply also

20

cites Local Rule 230(c), which provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition

21

to a motion at oral arguments if opposition has not been timely filed by that party.” Defendant

22

then argues that Plaintiff has failed to oppose the summary judgment motion and that summary

23

judgment should be granted. See id.
The Court takes Defendant’s reply essentially to be that because Plaintiff did not file a

24
25

timely opposition, Local Rule 230(c) dictates that he is not entitled to oppose the motion in any

26

way and that summary judgment should be granted. Many litigants attempt to read Local Rule

27
28

1

On February 3, 2016, Plaintiff refiled his motion to continue or deny, but entitled the filing an opposition to
summary judgment. See Doc. No. 61.

1

230(c) in this manner. However, the plain language of Rule 230(c) shows that the prohibition

2

against “being heard in opposition” refers to being heard “at oral arguments.” See Local Rule

3

230(c). The prohibition does not mean that a late filed written opposition will automatically be

4

disregarded.

5

With this understanding of Local Rule 230(c), the Court will not grant summary judgment

6

due to a failure to timely respond. Instead, the Court would like Defendant to file a substantive

7

reply that addresses the arguments made in Plaintiff’s opposition/motion (Doc. Nos. 59, 61).

8
9
10
11

ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall file a reply to Plaintiff’s
motion/opposition as soon as possible, but no later than 10:00 a.m. on February 12, 2016.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2016
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2