Adkins et al v. Apple Inc et al

Filing 300

ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE HER OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Orrick re 290 Motion for Extension of Time, 296 MOTION for Leave to File, 295 MOTION for Leave to File, and 293 First ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Leave to File A Supplemental Declaration. Opposition to motion for summary judgment due by 10/28/2016. Reply due by 11/23/2016.(wholc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2016) Modified on 10/24/2016 (jmdS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FABRIENNE ENGLISH,

Case No. 3:14-cv-01619-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

APPLE INC, et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 288, 290, 293, 295, 296

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE
FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE HER
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12
13

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s First and Second Motions for Extension of

14

Time (Dkt. Nos. 290, 295), Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplementary Declaration and/or

15

Notice of Newly Discovered Evidence (Dkt. No. 293), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File

16

John R. Parker, Jr.’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time (Dkt.

17

No. 296). All motions relate to Plaintiff’s pending opposition to Defendants’ Motion for

18

Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 288). The present deadline for Plaintiff to file her Opposition is

19

October 24, 2016. See Dkt. No. 275.

20

Plaintiff requests an additional 90 days to submit her response. Dkt No. 295, 2:7. She

21

contends that she has been unable to timely respond due to: (1) her inability to test the phone at

22

issue because she did not know its whereabouts until October 15, 2016 (See Dkt. No. 296-2); and

23

(2) outstanding discovery issues (See Dkt. No. 289). The phone, which has always been in

24

plaintiff’s counsel’s possession, has now been found, and the parties are discussing the proper

25

“protocol” for testing and inspecting it. See Dkt. No. 296-3. Additionally, defendants agreed to

26

respond to 19 interrogatories by October 17, 2016. Dkt. No. 289, 4:11.

27

This case has been pending since November, 2013. I denied class certification in January,

28

2016. I gave plaintiff four weeks, rather than two, to respond to defendants’ motion for summary

1

judgment. It is not at all clear to me that plaintiff lacks critical documents to respond to

2

defendants’ motion or that there is good cause to extend her briefing schedule. However, I will

3

grant her until October 28, 2016, to oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment. If there is

4

some basis to argue that plaintiff cannot present facts essential to justify her opposition, she can so

5

move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) and I will consider the issue; I would suggest

6

that plaintiff respond directly to those portions of defendants’ motion for which she believes she

7

has sufficient documentation. If she also moves under Rule 56(d), she should be sure to meet the

8

requirements of that section, including but not limited to providing the reasons why the evidence

9

had not been obtained earlier and how those facts will suffice to defeat the pending motion.
Defendants should plan to file their reply on November 23, 2016 as previously scheduled.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

There is ample time to complete the briefing by that date. The hearing will be held on December

12

14, 2016.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 23, 2016
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

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