Laine v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A

Filing 108

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF; ORDER REFERRING DISCOVERY DISPUTES TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE WESTMORE 100 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/7/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
DEBRA L. LAINE,

7

Case No. 13-cv-04109-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A,

10

Defendant.
11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF; ORDER REFERRING
DISCOVERY DISPUTES TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE WESTMORE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. Nos. 91, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 107
12
13
Plaintiff has filed two motions to compel discovery that are scheduled for a hearing on
14
May 8, 2015. The two motions to compel are fully briefed. Dkt. 91, 95, 96, 97, 99. The Court
15
REFERS the discovery motions to Magistrate Judge Westmore for resolution and VACATES the
16
hearing on those motions.
17
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for administrative relief to modify the pretrial order.
18
Under the current schedule, dispositive motions are scheduled to be filed by April 10, 2015. At the
19
recent case management conference, defendant stated it intended to file a motion for summary
20
judgment. Plaintiff seeks to modify the pretrial order because she states that she will need the
21
discovery that is the subject of the motions to compel in order to oppose defendant's summary
22
judgment motion. Defendant opposes plaintiff's administrative motion, and asserts that if plaintiff
23
requires any additional discovery in order to oppose defendant's upcoming motion for summary
24

judgment, plaintiff may seek that relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).1

25
26
27
28

1

Defendant's opposition also states that plaintiff's friend, Dennly Becker, often contacts defendant
on plaintiff's behalf, and that defense counsel has repeatedly informed plaintiff that defendant will
not communicate with Mr. Becker except in Mr. Becker's role as a witness. The Court reminds
plaintiff that Mr. Becker cannot represent plaintiff in this lawsuit, and that she personally is
responsible for engaging in direct communications with defense counsel.

1

The Court finds that there is no need to modify the pretrial schedule. Defendant has not

2

yet filed a motion for summary judgment, and thus at this point it is unknown what arguments

3

defendant may assert on summary judgment and what evidence will be relevant to deciding the

4

summary judgment motion. Once defendant files a motion for summary judgment, if plaintiff

5

believes that she cannot oppose the motion without obtaining additional discovery, plaintiff may

6
7
8
9

file a declaration pursuant to Rule 56(d). That rule provides, "If a nonmovant shows by affidavit
or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,
the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or
declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order."

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: April 7, 2015

14
________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2