Clark et al v. United States Of America et al

Filing 47

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING. Motion Hearing set for 12/20/2012 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/6/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
MICHAEL R. AND SUSAN C. CLARK,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

No. C 11-0471 RS
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

14

Defendant.

15
16

____________________________________/

17

Plaintiffs Michael and Susan Clark brought this action seeking a refund of approximately $1

18

million they paid in federal income taxes, plus interest. Prior to the close of discovery, the

19

Government filed a motion for summary judgment. At plaintiff’s request, the hearing was

20

continued, and the parties were permitted to file supplemental briefing to incorporate any germane

21

facts or arguments developed through additional discovery. Plaintiffs subsequently noticed a

22

motion for a further continuance of the hearing date and other deadlines, set to be heard on the same

23

date as the summary judgment motion. Although plaintiffs were requesting an extension of their

24

deadline for supplemental briefing, they took no steps to ensure that the continuance request would

25

be considered prior to the passing of that deadline.1 Plaintiffs’ continuance request also proposed

26
27
1

28

Had plaintiffs filed their continuance request under Civil Local 6-3, for example, any opposition
would have been due within four days and the matter could have been decided in a timely fashion.

1

extending the discovery cut off. Again, however, because plaintiffs failed to utilize Rule 6-3, that

2

issue appears moot, as the extended deadline they proposed has already passed.

3

While the parties have now filed supplemental materials regarding the summary judgment

4

motion notwithstanding plaintiffs’ pending continuance request, the Government has not responded

5

to the continuance request. Additionally, on September 24, 2012, the Government filed a motion to

6

quash certain deposition subpoenas, which it failed to notice or set for hearing. From captions in

7

subsequent briefing on that motion, it appears the parties may be expecting it to be heard on

8

November 8, 2012 by the undersigned. Because all discovery disputes in this action have

9

previously been referred to the assigned magistrate judge, however, that motion should have been

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

presented to Judge Cousins in accordance with the Local Rules and his procedures.
At this juncture, it is not clear whether any outstanding discovery issues, or information that

12

may have been the subject of recently completed discovery proceedings, is likely to be material to

13

the questions presented by the Government’s summary judgment motion. Nevertheless, under all

14

the circumstances, the hearing on the motion will be continued to December 20, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.

15

Absent extraordinarily compelling or emergency circumstances, no further requests for continuances

16

of the hearing date will be entertained. Not less than 14 days prior to the hearing, plaintiffs may file

17

a supplemental brief, not to exceed 7 pages, incorporating any additional material facts that may

18

have been discovered subsequent to their prior briefing. Within 7 days thereafter, the Government

19

may file a response, also not to exceed 7 pages. The parties are directed to exercise diligence, and

20

careful compliance with the Local Rules, in resolving any and all discovery issues that remain open,

21

including arranging for the motion to quash to be decided, if still necessary.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated: 11/6/12
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

2