McColm v. Foremost Insurance Company
Filing
177
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/17/2011: # 1 Envelope) (tf, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
PATRICIA A. MCCOLM,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
No. C 09-04132 SI
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
MODIFICATION OF ORDER
v.
FOREMOST INSURANCE CO,
12
Defendant.
/
13
14
The nonexpert discovery cutoff date in this case was March 31, 2011. Doc. 36. Defendant
15
Foremost Insurance Company has attempted to work with plaintiff to schedule a deposition since July
16
2010. See Doc. 160 at 2. Ultimately, defendant noticed a deposition for the end of March 2011 and then
17
complied with a request by plaintiff Patricia McColm to change the location of the deposition. Id. The
18
deposition did not take place.
19
On May 3, 2011, rather than dismissing the complaint or ordering sanction as requested by
20
defendant, the Court granted plaintiff one more opportunity to allow herself to be deposed. Id. at 2–3.
21
The Court required that the deposition be completed by May 19, 2011, rescheduled a variety of other
22
dates in the case including trial, and noted to plaintiff that no extensions of time would be granted for
23
any reason.
24
On May 15, 2011, plaintiff requested a modification of the May 3 order compelling her to appear
25
at a deposition. She asks for an extension of time because she is required to be in court in Trinity
26
27
28
1
County California this week on a pending criminal matter.1
2
Plaintiff has long been aware of the pending criminal matter. Nonetheless, she waited until long
3
after the discovery cutoff date to schedule her own deposition. It was not until the Court ordered her
4
to make herself available that she scheduled the deposition, and even then she scheduled the deposition
5
for the last two days permitted. The Court stated in its order that no extensions of time would be
6
granted, and no extensions of time will be granted. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The Court’s May
7
3, 2011 Order (docket 160) remains in effect without modification.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Dated: May 17, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff also indicates that she is required to attend a hearing in this case before
Magistrate Judge Chen on May 18, and that she did not know about that hearing until the end of last
week. That hearing date was scheduled over a month ago, see doc. 143; it was referenced in this Court’s
May 3 order, see doc. 160; and in any event, it has now been vacated.
Finally, and apparently without relation to her modification request, plaintiff states that
defendant has failed to comply with a discovery order in this case and asks for relief. Plaintiff’s motion
relates to her deposition and requests modification of the May 3 order, and has nothing whatsoever to
do with defendant’s discovery obligations.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?