Evans et al v. Hewlett Packard Company et al

Filing 54

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE by Hon. William Alsup DENYING 51 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2013)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 13-02477 WHA

ERNEST EVANS, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER SETTING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE

12

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, et
al.,

13

Defendants.
/

14
15

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 26 along with a stipulation and proposed

16

order requesting that the Court extend the parties’ briefing deadlines on the motion. The basis of

17

the request was to accommodate the parties’ vacation schedules and periods of unavailability.

18

The stipulation was not entered, and the proposed order remains pending. Nevertheless, the

19

parties have afforded themselves additional time without leave of the Court, and in violation of

20

the Local Rules. Plaintiffs filed their opposition a week and a half late on July 22. Defendants,

21

or so it would appear based on the stipulation, intend to file their reply a week and a half late.

22

The request to modify the briefing schedule is DENIED. It is too late to correct plaintiffs’

23

misapprehension of the scheduling rules, though other remedies remain available. In the

24

meantime, defendants shall file their reply brief no later than JULY 29 AT 8:00 A.M.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: July 24, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE