Ingram v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company et al

Filing 111

ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/3/2013 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on September 29, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/30/2013: # 1 Order) (wsn, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STEVEN INGRAM,

Case No. 12-cv-02777-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY,
et al.,

ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

Defendants.

12
13

This matter is currently set for hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,

14

ECF No. 48, on October 3, 2013. In his opposition to Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff Steven

15

Ingram requests that the Court continue this hearing on the ground that he has sought, but not

16

obtained, discovery relevant to his opposition to the motion. ECF No. 70 at pp. 12-13.

17

Plaintiff’s opposition was filed on September 6, 2013. That same day, Judge Spero issued

18

an order, ECF No. 71, granting certain of the relief Plaintiff had requested in the discovery

19

disputes pending between the parties. While Plaintiff has appealed certain aspects of that order,

20

ECF No. 74, Plaintiff will be entitled to receive additional information relevant to his summary

21

judgment opposition regardless of the outcome of that appeal.

22

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s request pursuant to Federal Rule of

23

Civil Procedure 56(d), ECF No. 70 pp. 12–13, to defer the Court’s consideration of Defendant’s

24

Motion for Summary Judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (“If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or

25

declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the

26

court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or

27

declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.”). Without addressing

28

the merits of the motion for summary judgment, the Court finds Plaintiff has adequately shown

1

through affidavit and judicial process that the facts he seeks from Defendant through discovery are

2

essential to oppose summary judgment. See California Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v.

3

Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing standard for continuance under

4

predecessor Rule 56(f)).

5

The hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment currently scheduled for
October 3, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., is hereby VACATED. However, the parties are still ordered to

7

appear for a case management conference on the same date and time in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor,

8

450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California, to discuss the impact of Judge Spero’s Order on

9

the case schedule and Plaintiff’s request for relief from that schedule, ECF No. 87. If Defendants

10

oppose Plaintiff’s request, or wish to propose a competing schedule, they may file a response by

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

by October 1, 2013.

12

The parties should come to the case management conference prepared to discuss case

13

deadlines as well as the timing of supplemental briefing and the motion hearing on Defendant’s

14

Motion for Summary Judgment.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 29, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2