Bangoura v. Andre-Boudin Bakeries, Inc.
Filing
63
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DENIAL OR CONTINUANCE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CONTINUING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. No later than April 19, 2013, plaintiff shall file any opposition t o defendant's motion. No later than May 3, 2013, defendant shall file any reply. The hearing on the motion is continued to May 17, 2013. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 29, 2013. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/29/2013: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
SORIBA BANGOURA,
No. C-12-3229 MMC
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR DENIAL OR CONTINUANCE OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
CONTINUING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
AND HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
11
v.
12
ANDRE-BOUDIN BAKERIES, INC.,
13
14
Defendant.
/
15
16
Before the Court is defendant Andre-Boudin Bakeries, Inc.’s “Motion for Summary
17
Judgment, or Alternatively, for Summary Adjudication of the Issues,” filed March 8, 2013.
18
Also before the Court is the “Declaration of Plaintiff Soriba Bangoura in Support of Request
19
for Denial or Continuance of Summary Judgment Under FRCP 56 (D),” filed March 21,
20
2013, to which defendant has filed a response.
21
In his declaration, plaintiff states he is “financially unable” to copy “materials to
22
support [his] opposition” to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (See Bangoura
23
Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff identifies the materials as defendant’s “responses” to plaintiff’s
24
discovery requests, plaintiff’s “medical and psychological records,” plaintiff’s “financial
25
hardship documentation,” plaintiff’s “full and complete deposition,” “affidavits and
26
declarations” from “friends, roommates and [plaintiff],” “housing photographs,” and “some
27
digital voice record[s].” (See id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff asserts said materials will “raise a genuine
28
issue of material fact[ ].” (See id. ¶ 4.) Based on the above-referenced statements,
1
plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
“A party requesting a continuance pursuant to Rule 56[d] must identify by affidavit
2
3
the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would
4
preclude summary judgment.” Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090,
5
1100 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, although plaintiff identifies in his declaration several
6
documents, he has failed to identify any specific fact those documents would reveal, let
7
alone explain how any such fact would preclude summary judgment. Moreover, although
8
documents pertaining to plaintiffs’ medical/psychological records, financial hardship, and
9
housing situation might, arguably, serve to establish plaintiff’s damages in the event plaintiff
10
proves defendant violated Title VII or some other provision of law, defendant’s motion goes
11
only to the issue of liability; consequently, evidence pertaining to damages would not
12
establish a triable issue of fact relevant to the instant motion. Finally, the Court notes,
13
plaintiff has been able to file voluminous exhibits, in particular, his Second Amended
14
Complaint, to which plaintiff has attached over 140 pages of exhibits as well as a compact
15
disc.
16
Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to show he is entitled to relief under Rule 56(d).
17
As the date by which plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion has passed,
18
however, the Court will extend the briefing schedule to afford plaintiff the opportunity to file
19
a substantive opposition to defendant’s motion. Specifically, the Court hereby
20
CONTINUES those dates as follows:
21
22
1. No later than April 19, 2013, plaintiff shall file any opposition to defendant’s
motion.
23
2. No later than May 3, 2013, defendant shall file any reply
24
3. The hearing on the motion is continued to May 17, 2013.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
Dated: March 29, 2013
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?