Greer v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL AND DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR HEARING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/15/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2011)

**E-filed 12/15/11**

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 DENYING LEAVE TO
SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTARY
MATERIAL AND DENYING MOTION
TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR
HEARING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

Defendant.
____________________________________/

16
17

1. Plaintiff’s motion under Civil Local Rule 7-3(d) for leave to submit supplementary

18

materials in opposition to the motion for summary judgment that is under submission is denied.

19

Plaintiff offers additional evidence for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the declarations

20

and deposition testimony submitted by defendant in support of its motion. In general, however, a

21

“party opposing summary judgment may not simply question the credibility of the movant to

22

foreclose summary judgment.” Far Out Productions, Inc. v. Oskar, 247 F.3d 986, 997 (9th Cir.

23

2001). Even to the extent it may be proper for a party opposing summary judgment to argue that,

24

given a particular factual record, summary judgment is foreclosed by the need to make credibility

25

determinations, the evidence plaintiff seeks to introduce now is merely cumulative to that which he

26

has already submitted.

27

2. Plaintiff’s motion under Civil Local Rule 6-3 to extend the deadline for hearing

28

dispositive motions is denied. Plaintiff asserts that he intends to move for summary judgment, on

1

unspecified grounds, if and when his pending motion to compel is granted and he receives further

2

discovery responses. Even assuming defendant’s submitted summary judgment motion is not

3

granted, it is not plausible that plaintiff will have a viable basis to seek summary judgment in his

4

favor except, perhaps, with respect to some limited, non-case dispositive, issues. Additionally, even

5

as to such limited issues, plaintiff’s contention that he will have grounds to move for summary

6

judgment upon the production of further discovery materials is speculative, at best. Particularly

7

given plaintiff’s failure to pursue his motion to compel in a diligent manner as he was expressly

8

ordered to do, there is no basis to extend the deadline for hearing dispositive motions.

from Magistrate Judge Corley with respect to timing of any further document production that may

11
For the Northern District of California

3. This order may render moot those portions of plaintiff’s present motion that seek relief

10

United States District Court

9

be ordered. Nevertheless, Judge Corley retains full discretion to act, or to decline to act, in response

12

to the present motion as she may deem appropriate.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: 12/15/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2