Greer v. Electronic Arts, Inc.
Filing
77
ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY CUT-OFF AND REFERRING MOTION TO COMPEL TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for Discovery purposes. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/1/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011)
**E-filed 12/1/11 **
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
GREGORY A. GREER
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.,
15
No. C 10-3601 RS
ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF
DISCOVERY CUT-OFF AND
REFERRING MOTION TO COMPEL
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendant.
____________________________________/
16
17
On November 30, 2011, plaintiff filed an “administrative motion” (Dkt. No. 75) seeking to
18
19
extend the cut-off for fact discovery (presently set for December 1, 2011) and his deadline for
20
making expert disclosures (which expired on November 1, 2011).1 The motion is denied for the
21
following reasons.
22
1. Plaintiff has offered no reason to extend the close of fact discovery other than that he has
23
a pending motion to compel, also filed on November 30, 2011. In the event the motion to compel is
24
granted, in whole or in part, however, defendant’s obligation to produce such additional information
25
as may be ordered will not be excused by the fact that the discovery cut-off has passed.
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff’s motion should have been brought as a motion to change time under Civil Local Rule 63, rather than as a motion for administrative relief under Rule 7-11. As the timing requirements of
the two rules are identical, however, plaintiff’s error in labeling will be disregarded.
discovery beyond that at issue in the motion to compel has been frustrated by those unresolved
3
disputes, he has failed to show that he acted diligently to bring his motion to compel in a more
4
timely fashion. Plaintiff implies that he was stymied in an earlier attempt to bring the motion to
5
compel by the failure of the Clerk’s office to forward to chambers the hard copies of a sealing
6
motion, together with a copy of the motion to compel that he was proposing be filed under seal. As
7
explained in an order filed September 30, 2011 (Dkt. No. 59), the sealing request was denied
8
without prejudice on grounds that it was grossly overbroad. While the order mentioned that
9
chambers copies of the underlying materials proposed to be sealed had not been received, that was
10
neither the basis of the denial, nor did it preclude plaintiff from filing his motion to compel with an
11
For the Northern District of California
2. To the extent that plaintiff may be contending that his ability to propound additional
2
United States District Court
1
appropriately-tailored sealing request. Indeed, the September 30th order, which also continued the
12
briefing schedule and hearing date for the pending summary judgment motion, expressly directed
13
plaintiff to “act expeditiously to obtain resolution of any discovery disputes he contends remain
14
outstanding.” Notwithstanding that order, plaintiff failed to take any action to file his motion to
15
compel for another full two months.
16
3. Plaintiff asserts that the continuance of the summary judgment proceedings provided by
17
the September 30, 2011 order, and a subsequent continuance obtained by stipulation, both left him
18
insufficient time to have a motion to compel heard and decided prior to the hearing on the summary
19
judgment motion. The continuance provided by the September 30, 2011 order was intended to
20
allow time for plaintiff to resolve any discovery issues material to the summary judgment
21
proceeding without a motion to compel, if possible. If a motion to compel became necessary, it was
22
incumbent on plaintiff either to seek a further continuance of the summary judgment proceedings, or
23
to have his motion to compel heard on shortened time, or both. Plaintiff did neither. Instead, he
24
filed a timely opposition to the summary judgment motion, unaccompanied by any further request
25
under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to be permitted further discovery. A prior
26
order filed July 12, 2011 (Dkt. 51) had specifically explained to plaintiff that he should, if
27
necessary, file a request for a Rule 56(d) continuance together with his substantive opposition, to be
28
reached only in the event the Court found the substantive opposition insufficient to create a material
2
1
issue of disputed fact. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff believes that further discovery may be
2
relevant to the issues to be decided in the pending motion for summary judgment, he has failed to
3
preserve that argument.
4
4. As to plaintiff’s request to extend the already-expired time to make his expert disclosures,
5
he has failed to explain why he did not seek such relief prior to the date the deadline passed.
6
Additionally, plaintiff’s cursory explanation that his intended expert “unexpectedly” demanded a
7
large down-payment of fees shortly before his expert disclosures were due does not establish good
8
cause for extending the deadline at this juncture. While plaintiff’s current request will therefore be
9
denied, the denial is without prejudice to a separate motion seeking relief from plaintiffs’ failure to
comply with his deadline for making expert disclosures, to be filed only in the event the pending
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
motion for summary judgment is denied, but which must be filed promptly after the issuance of any
12
such order.
13
14
Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 72-1, the Court hereby refers plaintiff’s motion to
15
compel (Dkt. No. 74), the associated sealing motion (Dkt. No. 73), and any further discovery
16
disputes herein to a randomly assigned Magistrate Judge for resolution. The hearing on the motion
17
to compel set for January 5, 2012 is vacated. Plaintiff shall renotice the motion for hearing before
18
the Magistrate Judge pursuant to the local rules and any standing orders or procedures of the
19
Magistrate Judge upon assignment.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
25
Dated: 12/1/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
3
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?