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)

Download PDF
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

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?