Doe v. City of San Mateo et al

Filing 209

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION(SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: March 3, 2009 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge IT IS SO ORDERED. v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al., Defendants. / JANE DOE, Plaintiff, No. C 07-05596 SI No. C 08-02541 SI ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss was originally due on February 13, 2009. On February 12, 2009, plaintiff filed a request for a month-long extension. The Court granted plaintiff a two-week extension and reset the filing deadline for February 27. On February 24, plaintiff filed another request for a two-week extension. The Court did not immediately rule on plaintiff's request and on February 27, plaintiff filed an "incomplete" opposition. Plaintiff's second request for an extension is DENIED and her opposition shall be deemed submitted as filed on February 27. The Court notes that plaintiff's opposition is 48 pages and that she did not request permission of the Court to file a brief in excess of 25 pages. The Court will nonetheless accept plaintiff's brief because she is representing herself.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10

28 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

27

26

25

24

1

2