Cobb et al v. Brede et al

Filing 125

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME re 124 Request filed by Jonathan D. Cobb, Sr., Walter Arlen St. Clair. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 11/9/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 Northern District of California 8 9 JONATHAN D. COBB, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, 10 v. No. C 10-03907 MEJ ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 11 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ERNEST BREDE, et al., 12 13 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 14 15 On November 7, 2011, over one month after the close of discovery in this matter, Plaintiffs 16 Jonathan Cobb and W. Arlen St. Clair filed a Request to Extend Discovery and Deposition 17 Deadlines. Dkt. No. 124. In their request, Plaintiffs state that they served a subpoena on Bill 18 Douglas’ father the week of October 9, 2011. As the subpoena was not served prior to the discovery 19 cut-off, and no request was made to extend the deadline to serve the subpoena prior to the cut-off 20 date, Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED. 21 Plaintiffs also request an extension of time to obtain responses to subpoenas. “The district 22 court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Zivkovic v. Southern 23 California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth 24 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). The Court may modify the discovery deadline 25 only for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087. “Generally, in 26 determining whether there is good cause to permit an extension the court will primarily look to the 27 (1) diligence of the party seeking the extension, but may also consider (2) the explanation for the 28 failure to complete discovery in a timely fashion; and (3) potential prejudice in allowing the 1 extension.” Missing Link, Inc. v. eBay, Inc., No. C–07–04487 RMW, 2010 WL 34268, at *2 (N.D. 2 Cal. Jan. 6, 2010). Here, discovery closed over one month ago, yet Plaintiffs provide no explanation 3 for their belated request. Further, the Court has held multiple discovery conferences in this case and 4 given the parties ample time to complete discovery, including a 30-day extension of the original 5 discovery deadline. Dkt. Nos. 32, 52, 58, 59, 66, 77, 96. Moreover, Defendants have a pending 6 summary judgment motion, and extension will thereby prejudice Defendants. 7 If Plaintiffs believed that additional time would be required for the subpoenas, they should closed to seek relief from the Court.1 Wartluft v. Feather River Cmty. Coll., 2010 WL 682305, at *2 10 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2010); Pritchard v. Dow Agro Sciences, 255 F.R.D. 164, 177 (W.D. Penn. 2009) 11 (recognizing that a party must make a “timely request” for relief under Rule 16, demonstrating why 12 For the Northern District of California have complied with the undersigned’s discovery standing order and not have waited until discovery 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 it was unfeasible to meet the scheduled deadlines). As Plaintiffs waited until over one month after 13 the close of discovery, the Court finds that they did not act diligently, have failed to provide an 14 explanation for failure to comply with the Court’s previous order on this issue, and any extension 15 would prejudice Defendants, who have a pending summary judgment motion, the Court must deny 16 their request to extend the discovery deadline. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: November 9, 2011 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court previously informed Plaintiffs that they needed to comply with the discovery standing order as to subpoenas. See Dkt. No. 99. 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 4 JONATHAN D COBB SR Case Number: 10-03907 MEJ 5 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 7 8 v. ERNEST BREDE Defendant. / 9 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 14 15 16 17 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on November 9, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Jonathan D. Cobb, Sr. 828 Weeks St. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Walter Arlen St. Clair 1227 Sevier St Menlo Park, CA 94025 18 19 20 Dated: November 9, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Brenda Tolbert, Deputy Clerk 21 22 23 24 25 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?