Hensley-Maclean et al v. Safeway, Inc.

Filing 113

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME AND DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. by Judge Richard Seeborg (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2014)

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
13
14
15
16
17

DEE HENSLEY-MACLEAN, and
JENNIFER ROSEN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,

No. C 11-1230 RS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME AND DENYING
MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs,
v.
SAFEWAY, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/

18
19

Plaintiffs seek an order shortening time to resolve the question of whether they were entitled

20

to take additional discovery prior to and in connection with defendant’s summary judgment motion.

21

The record shows that as early as August of 2012 the assigned magistrate judge ruled that leave to

22

take any further discovery must be sought from the undersigned. Additionally, this particular

23

dispute had crystalized no later than October of 2012. While efforts to resolve discovery disputes

24

without court intervention are always to be encouraged, and resort to motion practice should not be

25

hasty, the timing issue presented here is solely the result of plaintiffs’ lack of reasonable diligence.

26

The motion to shorten time is denied and the underlying motion to compel is denied without

27

prejudice. Plaintiffs should file such opposition to the summary judgment motion as they may have

28

based on the current record. If in good faith plaintiffs believe essential facts to support its
1

1

opposition remain to be discovered, they may, as part of their opposition, alternatively seek a

2

continuance under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to take such discovery. Any

3

such request “must identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and

4

explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment.” Tatum v. City and Cnty. of San

5

Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir.2006)

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
Dated: 1/15/14
RICHARD SEEBORG
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2