Ua Cruadhlaoich v. Bryson

Filing 75

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE on 12/17/13. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MATTHEW A I UA CRUADHLAOICH,
Plaintiff,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C -12-02723(EDL)
ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED
SCHEDULE

v.
PENNY S. PRITZKER, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT O COMMERCE,

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

/

On November 27, 2013, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel and found that
Plaintiff’s discovery requests were not unenforceable because of their untimely service. The Court
ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint letter to the Court regarding their proposed
procedures and schedule for: Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s document requests; resolution of
any disputes regarding the document requests and any related Rule 56(d) motion; possible filing of a
revised motion for summary judgment; and briefing of the motion for summary judgment. (Dkt.
73.)

The parties submitted a joint letter on December 6, 2013, and proposed the following

schedule: Defendant will respond to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents to
Defendant no later than January 10, 2014. If Plaintiff does not file a motion to compel further
responses, Plaintiff will file and serve his opposition to Defendant’s currently pending motion for
summary judgment by February 10, 2014. Defendant will then file its reply by February 24, 2014,
and the Court will hold a hearing on March 11, 2014. If, however, Plaintiff believes that further
responses to his discovery responses are required, the parties will meet and confer, and Plaintiff will
file a motion to compel if necessary by January 27, 2014; the briefing and hearing schedule on any
such motion will comport with the Court’s local rules. If the Court grants or grants in part Plaintiff’s
motion to compel, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and/or

1

Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion will be due after Defendant produces further responses, at a time

2

agreed by the parties and the Court. If Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied, Plaintiff’s opposition

3

to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and/or Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion will be due 17

4

days after the Court’s ruling denying the motion to compel. (Dkt. 74.)

5

For good cause shown, the Court adopts the schedule proposed by the parties as set forth

6

above. To the extent the Court needs to continue any other matters in this case, it will do so at a

7

later date.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 17, 2013
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

MATTHEW A I UA CRUADHLAOICH,

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Case Number: CV12-02723 EDL

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
JOHN E BRYSON et al,
Defendant.

/

11
12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California.
That on December 17, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located
in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

20

Matthew A. I. Ua Cruadhlaoich
3440 Redwood Court
Unit 2
Castro Valley, CA 94546

21

Dated: December 17, 2013

19

22

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Lisa R Clark, Deputy Clerk

23
24
25
26
27
28
3