Steinhart v. Barkela et al

Filing 74

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY re 72 Proposed Order filed by Sally Steinhart. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on September 28, 2012. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SALLY STEINHART,

9

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. 11-03497 EDL

v.

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO
APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY

JOSEPH BARKELA,
Defendants.
/

13
14

On September 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting, among other things, permission to

15

appear by telephone at the case management conference that was then set for September 25, 2012.

16

On September 20, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to appear by telephone at the case

17

management conference. See Docket No. 65. The Court, however, continued the case management

18

conference to October 2, 2012 in part based on Plaintiff’s September 19, 2012 letter.

19

On September 24, 2012, Plaintiff requested a continuance of the October 2, 2012 case

20

management conference from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. or later on October 2, 2012. In that request,

21

Plaintiff stated:

22
23
24

I have a previously set motion on October 2, 2012 at 8:30 am in Sonoma Superior
Court. As there will be no tentative ruling, and a telephone appearance is not
permitted in that matter, I would respectfully request that the time of the Case
Management Conference in this matter be changed. I won't be able to appear in
person until 11:30 am at the earliest. Therefore I would respectfully request that it be
held at 12:00 noon, or sometime in the afternoon.

25
Docket No. 66. The Courtrescheduled the case management conference from 10:00 a.m. on October
26
2, 2012 to 12:00 p.m. on October 2, 2012, solely at Plaintiff’s request.
27
On September 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed another request to appear telephonically at the case
28
management conference set for October 2, 2012 at 12:00 p.m. Plaintiff states that she is regularly
employed as a school crossing guard from 2:20 p.m. until 3:10 p.m. on school days, including

1

October 2, 2012. In her renewed request, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for a telephone

2

appearance. When Plaintiff requested a continuance to a time in the afternoon of October 2, 2012,

3

she did not mention her afternoon obligation as a crossing guard. Further, the Court has

4

accommodated Plaintiff’s requests for continuances of the case management conference on two

5

occasions. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request is denied.

6

Dated: September 28, 2012

7

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2