Somers v. Digital Realty Trust Inc et al

Filing 307

ORDER Denying 306 Plaintiff's Request for Extension of Time. The hearing on April 19, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. will go forward as scheduled. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 4/18/2018. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PAUL SOMERS,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME

v.

9
10

DIGITAL REALTY TRUST INC, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 14-cv-05180-EMC (KAW)

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 306

12
On April 11, 2018, Plaintiff Paul Somers filed a letter stating that his reply in support of

13
14

his motion for recusal had been lost due to technological issues. (Dkt. No. 300 at 1.) Plaintiff

15

stated that he would file his reply as soon as he could recover the document. (Id.) On April 16,

16

2018, the Court extended Plaintiff's filing deadline to April 18, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. (Dkt. No. 303

17

at 1.)

18

On April 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter stating that the extension of time was insufficient

19

because he was unavailable the prior day, and that he was "sifting through thousands of entries

20

from StatCounter which are providing important bits of information which must be brought

21

forward in the interest of justice." (Dkt. No. 306 at 1.) Plaintiff stated that he would need until

22

4:00 p.m. to file a partial reply. (Id.) Plaintiff also argued that the undersigned could not decide

23

the recusal motion because "a random judge must decide on the motion," and that future hearings

24

should be put on hold. (Id.)

25

The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for a further extension of time. Plaintiff's reply was

26

due on April 10, 2018. The Court granted Plaintiff's request for an extension based on his

27

representation that the reply "went missing [on April 10, 2018] when Microsoft Word suddenly

28

closed without warning," and that he "w[ould] file [his] reply as soon as [he] could recover the

1

document or build a new." (Dkt. No. 300 at 1.) Plaintiff never suggested that he needed

2

additional time to conduct further research; instead, his request was based solely on the

3

technological issue. Plaintiff has already been granted an additional week to file his reply, and the

4

Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for any further extension.

5

To the extent Plaintiff requests that the April 19, 2019 hearing not go forward, the request

6

is DENIED. While Plaintiff argues that "a random judge must decide" the recusal motion,

7

Plaintiff is mistaken. Plaintiff sought the undersigned's recusal per 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b).

8

(Plf.'s Mot. to Recuse at 1, Dkt. No. 288.) 28 U.S.C. § 455, however, "includes no provision for

9

referral of the question of recusal to another judge . . . ." United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

(9th Cir. 1980). The hearing will go forward on April 19, 2018 at 1:30 p.m., as scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 18, 2018
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2