Greer v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

Filing 59

ORDER FOR SECOND CONTINUANCE OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Motion Hearing set for 11/17/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 9/29/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2011)

**E-filed 9/30/11 **

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

GREGORY A. GREER
Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.,

15

No. C 10-3601 RS
ORDER FOR SECOND
CONTINUENCE OF BRIEFING
SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOTION

Defendant.
____________________________________/

16
17
18

The briefing schedule and hearing date for defendant’s motion for summary judgment was

19

previously continued in response to plaintiff’s request under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil

20

Procedure that he be permitted to conduct certain additional discovery. On September 14, 2011,

21

plaintiff filed a request for a second continuance. Plaintiff asserted that he had been unable to obtain

22

the discovery he needs to oppose the motion, as would be shown in a contemporaneously filed

23

motion to compel. No motion to compel was filed with the continuance request, however.

24

The following day, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to File Under Seal,” apparently

25

seeking blanket, advance permission to file the entirety of his motion to compel, his eventual

26

opposition to the summary judgment motion, and “other documents” under seal, on grounds that

27

they may discuss or incorporate information designated by defendant as confidential. Sealing

28

requests “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil Local Rule 79-

1

5. Rarely, if ever would it be appropriate to seal an entire motion or opposition brief, and certainly a

2

blanket order permitting sealing of unspecified future filings would never be warranted. Because

3

plaintiff’s motion promised that chambers copies of the motion to compel were being provided,

4

however, the Court deferred ruling on the sealing request pending receipt of those copies, in the

5

event they might show that plaintiff’s intended actual sealing request was more reasonable in scope.

6

No chambers copies have ever been received. Defendant has filed no opposition to plaintiff’s

7

request for a continuance.

8
9

In view of these circumstances, and to permit an orderly disposition of this matter, it is
hereby ordered that the hearing on defendant’s summary judgment motion is continued to
November 17, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff’s opposition shall be due on October 27, 2011, and the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

reply on November 3, 2011.

12

Plaintiff is directed to act expeditiously to obtain resolution of any discovery disputes he

13

contends remain outstanding. Any motion to compel plaintiff may file will be referred to a

14

magistrate judge for resolution. Plaintiff’s motion for a sealing order filed on September 15, 2011 is

15

denied without prejudice.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22
23

Dated: 9/29/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2