Xie v. Turner Designs Hydro Carbon Instruments, Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER Granting in Part Plaintiff's Motions for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss 31 & 36 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/3/2017. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:17-cv-00284-LJO-SKO

AGNES XIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
TURNER DESIGNS HYDRO CARBON
INSTRUMENTS, INC., et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
MOTION TO DISMISS
(Docs. 31 & 36)

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16
17

Before the Court are Plaintiff's (1) "Amended Second Motion for Extension of Time to

18 Response [sic] to Motion to Dismiss" (the "Amended Motion"), (Doc. 31), and (2) “Second
19 Motion for Extension of Time for Response [sic] to Dismiss” (the “Second Motion”), (Doc. 36).
20 For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Amended Motion, (Doc. 31), and the
21 Second Motion, (Doc. 36), insofar as Plaintiff requests an extension to file her opposition to the
22 pending motions to dismiss. However, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of this case,
23 the Court finds that a sixty day extension―and not Plaintiff's requested ninety day extension―is
24 appropriate. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff may respond to Defendants' motions
25 to dismiss, (Docs. 19 & 20), by no later than October 2, 2017. The Court further ORDERS that
26 Defendants may file their reply briefs, if they so choose, by no later than October 16, 2017.
27

The Court also notes that Plaintiff filed a "Part 1" opposition to one of the motions to

28 dismiss on July 31, 2017. (See Doc. 32.) The Court CAUTIONS Plaintiff that she may file―and

1 the Court will only consider―one opposition to each pending motion to dismiss. As such, if
2 Plaintiff files an additional opposition to this motion to dismiss, (see Doc. 19), the Court shall only
3 consider Plaintiff's newly filed opposition and not her July 31, 2017 "Part 1" filing.
4

Finally, Plaintiff sent an ex parte e-mail to the Court on July 31, 2017, that included a

5 “protective order” for certain documents associated with Plaintiff’s July 31, 2017 “Part 1” filing.
6 If Plaintiff files a new opposition to the subject motion to dismiss, (see Doc. 19), the Court will
7 disregard this July 31, 2017 ex parte communication. However, if Plaintiff wishes instead to rely
8 on this “Part 1” filing as her one opposition to this motion to dismiss, then the Court DIRECTS
9 Plaintiff to file a motion requesting to seal the documents in accordance with Local Rule 141.
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated:
13

August 3, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.