Steinhart v. Barkela et al

Filing 76

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO RESET TIME OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND DENYING REQUEST TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE re 75 Notice (Other) filed by Sally Steinhart. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on October 2, 2012. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2012)

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. C -11-03497 EDL
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
RESET TIME OF CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE AND DENYING
REQUEST TO APPEAR BY
TELEPHONE

v.
JOSEPH BARKELA, et al.,
Defendants.

/

13
14

On September 10, 2012, the Court set a case management conference in this case because

15

this case had been idle since June 2012 when the Court issued an order on motions to dismiss filed

16

by Defendants Crespan and Pena, and Defendant Madrigal. On September 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a

17

letter requesting, among other things, permission to appear by telephone at the case management

18

conference that was then set for September 25, 2012. On September 20, 2012, the Court denied

19

Plaintiff’s request to appear by telephone at the case management conference. See Docket No. 65.

20

The Court, however, continued the case management conference to October 2, 2012 in part based on

21

Plaintiff’s September 19, 2012 letter. On September 24, 2012, Plaintiff requested a continuance of

22

the October 2, 2012 case management conference from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. or later on October

23

2, 2012. On September 27, 2012, the Court rescheduled the case management conference from

24

10:00 a.m. on October 2, 2012 to 12:00 p.m. on October 2, 2012, solely at Plaintiff’s request.

25

On September 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed another request to appear telephonically at the case

26

management conference set for October 2, 2012 at 12:00 p.m. On October 1, 2012, the Court issued

27

an order denying Plaintiff’s request to appear by telephone.

28

Later on October 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed another request to appear by telephone at the case
management conference, and to re-set the conference to the original time of 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff

1

explained that she found out on September 30, 2012 that her school crossing guard obligation would

2

begin at 11:45 a.m. during this week. For the first time, Plaintiff also stated that she lacked reliable

3

transportation to make her court appearance.

4

The Court has bent over backwards to accommodate Plaintiff’s scheduling requests with

5

respect to this case management conference and will not change the schedule at this late date. In

6

addition to affecting the Court’s schedule, three other parties that are affected by the scheduling of

7

this matter, and it is not fair to them to continue to change the timing of this conference. Therefore,

8

Plaintiff’s request to change the time of the case management conference and to appear by telephone

9

is denied. Plaintiff is cautioned again that she has a duty to prosecute this case diligently and to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

appear for court conferences and hearings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 2, 2012
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

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