Farah v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage et al

Filing 92

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY. Motions terminated: Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, Supplemental MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 10/02/2017. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

PAUL FARAH,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
v.

12
13
14

Case No. 13-cv-01127-MMC

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, et
al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
AMENDED MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY
Re: Dkt. No. 90

Defendants.
15
16

Before the Court is plaintiff Paul Farah’s “Amended Motion for Extension of Time

17

to Complete Discovery (FRCP 16(b)(4)),” filed September 19, 2017,1 and supplemented

18

September 20, 2017. Defendants have not filed opposition. See Civil L.R. 6-3 (providing

19

four-day deadline for opposition to motion to change time). The Court, having read and

20

considered the papers filed in support thereof, finds plaintiff’s motion fails.

21

First, as provided in Civil Local Rule 6-3, a motion to change time “must be

22

accompanied by . . . a declaration” setting forth a variety of factors showing good cause

23

for the relief requested. See Civil L.R. 6-3(a); (see also Order, filed 09/19/17, directing

24

plaintiff’s attention to Rule 6-3). Second, as provided in Civil Local Rule 16-2(d)(3), a

25

motion for relief from an obligation imposed by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil

26
27
28

1

Earlier that same date, the Court denied plaintiff’s “Motion for Extension of Time
to Complete Discovery.”

1

Procedure must “[b]e accompanied by a proposed revised case management schedule.”

2

See Civil L.R. 16-2(d)(3). 2 Third, even if the Court were to disregard the lack of a

3

declaration and proposed revised case management schedule, the motion fails, as the

4

substance of plaintiff’s showing in support thereof is inadequate. In particular, plaintiff

5

fails to describe the extent of the additional discovery he seeks, nor does he explain why

6

the time then remaining between defendants’ disclosure of assertedly new facts and the

7

non-expert discovery cutoff set forth in the Court’s Pretrial Preparation Order was

8

insufficient for any such purpose.

9

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: October 2, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

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

2

The Court also notes plaintiff has, once again, failed to provide a chambers copy
of his motion.
2