Steinhart v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 100

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S THIRD REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION. Motion Hearing set for 5/9/2013 01:30 PM and Further Case Management Conference set for 5/9/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/8/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2013)

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
SALLY STEINHART,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

No. C 10-00841 RS
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION

v.
DEPUTY SHERIFFS M. SHANAHAN,
BRIAN K. COVINGTON, CAROLYN
JAAP, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

18

Defendant Caroline Jaap’s summary judgment motion was noticed for hearing on April 11,

19

2013. Plaintiff Sally Steinhart twice moved for, and received, extensions of her deadline for filing

20

an opposition to the motion. The second extension continued her deadline for filing her opposition

21

until April 3, 2013. Steinhart failed to file an opposition by that date. Instead, two days later, she

22

filed a “separate supplemental case management statement” in which she argued that the motion for

23

summary judgment had not been noticed properly due to defendant’s late correction of Exhibit B to

24

the Declaration of Maureen Furlong. Steinhart therefore requested that the summary judgment

25

hearing (and her deadline for filing an opposition to the motion) be continued. Without ruling on

26

the merits of that argument, it is clear that Steinhart’s repeated failure to meet even extended

27

deadlines as well as the content of her case management statement demonstrate that she is

28
NO. C 10-00841-RS
ORDER

1

unprepared to present the merits of her opposition to the motion for summary judgment at the

2

hearing as presently scheduled.

3

Her case management statement is construed as a third motion for an extension of time to

4

file her opposition. The further case management conference scheduled for Thursday, April 11,

5

2013, as well as the hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment are hereby continued to

6

Thursday, May 9, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff’s opposition brief must be filed on or before

7

Thursday, April 25, 2013. No further extensions or continuances will be granted to plaintiff.

8

Failure to meet the April 25, 2013, filing deadline will result in the waiver of her opportunity to

9

submit a written response to the motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s reply brief, if any,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

must be filed on or before Thursday, May 2, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: 4/8/13
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NO. C 12-04548-RS
ORDER

2