Greer v. Lockheed Martin et al

Filing 86

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND DENYING REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE by Hon. William Alsup denying 83 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JEAN ELISE GREER, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 No. C 10-01704 WHA Plaintiff, v. 14 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION and ESIS, INC., 15 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND DENYING REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE Defendants. / 16 17 Plaintiff Jean Elise Greer has filed a request for an extension of time to file her opposition 18 to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff requests this extension in order to 19 complete additional discovery and states that she “anticipates the need to file a motion to compel 20 to obtain relevant evidence withheld by Defendants” (Dkt. No. 83 at 2). Plaintiff also requests 21 that the hearing date be modified due to plaintiff’s counsel’s unavailability on that date. 22 This action was filed on March 29, 2010, and was reassigned to the undersigned judge on 23 September 27, 2011. By order dated June 14, 2011, the originally assigned judge extended the 24 discovery cut-off date from June 30, 2011 to October 28, 2011. Upon reassignment, the 25 undersigned judge extended the non-expert discovery cut-off date to December 30, 2011 and set 26 January 26, 2012 as the last day to file dispositive motions (Dkt. No 72). Plaintiff asserts that 27 “substantial harm and prejudice would result if Plaintiff is not allowed to complete discovery and 28 obtain the necessary information to defend against Defendant’s motion” (Dkt. No. 83 at 3). Plaintiff has had ample time in which to take discovery and has not filed any discovery dispute 1 letters with the undersigned judge. Regardless, plaintiff has now filed its opposition to the motion 2 for summary judgment. Thus, the request for an extension of time to file the opposition is 3 DENIED AS MOOT. 4 Plaintiff has also requested a continuance of the hearing date. Defendant opposes. Lakeisha Poole, one of plaintiff’s counsel, has submitted a declaration stating that she is unable to 7 attend the hearing on January 5, 2012, because she is scheduled to defend a deposition that day; 8 she does not indicate if there is a direct conflict of time between the hearing on the motion for 9 summary judgment and her defense of a deposition. Attorney Poole’s declaration also states that 10 Attorney Alieu Iscandari and Asha Wilkerson, also plaintiff’s counsel in this action, will not be 11 For the Northern District of California Plaintiff is represented by three different attorneys from three different law offices. Attorney 6 United States District Court 5 able to attend because Attorney Iscandari has a hearing that morning and Attorney Wilkerson will 12 be defending a deposition. 13 Good cause is not shown to continue the hearing date of January 5, 2011, particularly in 14 light of the fact that plaintiff is represented by three different counsel from three different law 15 offices. At least one of plaintiff’s counsel should be able to accommodate the hearing date, of 16 which they have been on notice of since December 1, 2011. The request to continue the hearing 17 date is DENIED. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: December 19, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?