Barrilleaux v. Mendicino County et al
Filing
139
ORDER denying 135 County of Mendocino's administration motion to postpone deposition. Briefing schedule on 136 County of Mendocino's motion for summary judgment is stayed, pending withdrawal or stipulated revised briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/04/17. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2017)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
JESSICA BARRILLEAUX,
Plaintiff,
6
7
8
9
v.
MENDOCINO COUNTY, et al.,
Case No. 14-cv-01373-TEH
ORDER DENYING COUNTY OF
MENDOCINO’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO POSTPONE
DEPOSITION
Defendants.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
On December 22, 2016, Defendant County of Mendocino filed both a motion for
12
summary judgment and an administrative motion to postpone a noticed deposition pending
13
the Court’s ruling on its summary judgment motion.
14
An administrative motion is proper when “during the course of case proceedings a
15
party may require a Court order with respect to miscellaneous administrative matters, not
16
otherwise governed by a federal statute, Federal or local rule or standing order of the
17
assigned judge.” Civil L.R. 7-11 (emphasis added). In this case, the County’s motion on
18
its face requests relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(B), and its motion is
19
therefore improper under Rule 7-11. Accordingly, the administrative motion is DENIED,
20
without prejudice to the County’s following proper procedures to bring this issue before
21
Magistrate Judge Vadas, to whom all discovery disputes have been referred.
22
The County indicated that it would withdraw its summary judgment motion if its
23
administrative motion were denied. However, counsel also indicated her unavailability
24
through January 9, which is after the current deadline for Plaintiff to oppose the summary
25
judgment motion. To allow time for the County to withdraw its motion, the briefing
26
schedule is therefore STAYED. If the County opts not to withdraw its motion, then the
27
parties shall meet and confer and file a stipulation and proposed order with a revised
28
briefing schedule on or before January 17, 2017.
1
Finally, the Court is displeased at the timing of the County’s motions. First, there
2
appears to have been no reason for the County to have filed the summary judgment motion
3
and the administrative motion simultaneously, given that the County explicitly made the
4
filing of its summary judgment motion contingent on the granting of its administrative
5
motion. Second, the County’s counsel stated in her declaration that:
6
7
8
9
10
I am concerned about the timing of the foregoing
Administrative Motion and motion for summary judgment, as I
do not want to compromise either the Court’s or counsel’s
holiday or vacation plans. In fact, I will not be available
during the period December 29, 2016 through January 9, 2017,
as I will be out of the country on vacation during that time.
Accordingly, the County has no objection to any reasonable
request to extend the times or dates associated with these
motions.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Dec. 22, 2016 Keck Decl. ¶ 11. Yet she did not file the County’s motions until
12
approximately 6:30 PM on Thursday, December 22. That made the opposition to the
13
administrative motion due on December 27 (because December 26 was a Court holiday),
14
and the opposition to the summary judgment motion due on January 5. Plaintiffs’ counsel
15
therefore would have had to work during the holiday period either on the opposition briefs
16
or, at minimum, on attempting to obtain a stipulation to extend the briefing deadlines.
17
Thus, by filing her motions when she did, counsel necessarily “compromise[d] . . .
18
counsel’s holiday or vacation plans.” Id. The Court expects all counsel to be more
19
cooperative regarding scheduling in the future.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
Dated: 01/04/17
_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
25
26
27
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?