Reynolds v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 67

ORDER RE SCHEDULING. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/25/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2011)

**E-filed 10/25/11**

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

RON E. REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. C 09-0301 RS
ORDER RE SCHEDULING

13
14
15
16

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

17
18

Defendants seek an extension of the deadline for hearing dispositive motions, in light of lead

19

counsel’s impending family leave. Plaintiff is correct that defendant’s motion is not properly

20

characterized as one brought under Civil Local Rule 7-11. It is not the case, however, that

21

defendants were required to bring the motion on 35 days notice, absent a separate application for an

22

order shortening time. Rather, because the relief defendants seek is only an enlargement of the time

23

in which they must file any dispositive motions, the motion could properly be brought as a stand-

24

alone motion under Civil Local 6-3. The deadline for oppositions to be filed is identical under

25

Rules 6-3 and 7-11, so plaintiff was not prejudiced by the mislabeling of the motion.

26

As plaintiff points out, however, good cause for the requested extension of time must still be

27

shown. Defendants have not established that an extension of the dispositive motion hearing

28

deadline to April of 2012 is appropriate, although some relief is warranted. Accordingly, it is

1

hereby ordered that the deadline for hearing any dispositive motions is extended to March 8, 2012,

2

with the motions to be filed at least 35 days in advance. To minimize the potential of any prejudice

3

to plaintiff, dispositive motions shall not be set for hearing any earlier than March 1, 2012, and

4

regardless of when such motions may be actually filed, the briefing schedule shall be calculated

5

from the noticed hearing date, with opposition due 21 days in advance, and reply due 14 days in

6

advance. No other dates or deadlines will be altered at this juncture, and the parties should make

7

every effort to complete all pending depositions and any other fact discovery as presently scheduled.

8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Dated: 10/25/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2