Smith v. United States Department of Agriculture et. al.

Filing 37

ORDER Denying 33 Motion to Change Time. Signed by Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ANGELA SMITH,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-04497-TEH
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CHANGE TIME

Defendants.
9
10

Defendants United States Department of Agriculture (“UDSA”) and Tom Vilsack

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

and Defendant Will Lightbourne separately filed Motions to Dismiss in this matter on

12

February 11, 2016. Docket Nos. 30, 31. The following day, this Court issued a notice that

13

the case management conference previously scheduled for February 29, 2016 was

14

continued to June 13, 2016. Docket No. 32. On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff Angela Smith

15

filed a Motion to Change Time: Request for Earlier Initial Case Management Conference.

16

Docket No. 33 (“Mot.”). The Defendants separately and timely opposed Plaintiff’s Motion

17

to Change Time. Docket Nos. 35, 36 (“USDA Opp’n” and “Lightbourne Opp’n,”

18

respectively).

19

At the heart of Plaintiff’s request is her argument that she cannot effectively oppose

20

the pending Motions to Dismiss without further development of the record. Mot. at 1.

21

Specifically, Plaintiff argues that “Discovery is necessary to defend against the pending

22

motions to dismiss because the motions raise factual allegations contrary to those in the

23

complaint, and allege facts based on information that is available unilaterally to

24

Defendants.” Id. But the Court agrees with Defendants that a Motion to Change Time is

25

not the appropriate vehicle for Plaintiff’s concerns. See USDA Opp’n at 5 (“[T]he place

26

for [Plaintiff] to make such an argument is in her opposition to the motion to dismiss

27

which provides the more efficient vehicle for evaluating these arguments.”); Lightbourne

28

Opp’n at 4 (“Plaintiff can most appropriately submit an affidavit with her response to the

1

Director’s motion to dismiss, identifying with specificity what additional discovery is

2

needed against the Director to respond to particular arguments raised in his motion.”). See

3

also Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236, 244 (2d Cir. 2004) (affirming denial of request for

4

further discovery to oppose a motion to dismiss, where plaintiffs had submitted an affidavit

5

requesting discovery of particular documents and depositions). The Court therefore finds

6

that addressing Plaintiff’s contentions regarding discovery in the context of the Motions to

7

Dismiss is more efficient than an earlier case management conference, as it will prevent

8

litigation of what may prove to be irrelevant discovery disputes.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Change Time is hereby DENIED, and all

10

briefing, hearing, and case management deadlines remain unchanged. If Plaintiff should

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

find that she cannot effectively oppose the Motions to Dismiss without further discovery,

12

she is directed to identify her specific discovery needs in an affidavit attached to her

13

oppositions to the Motions to Dismiss. The Court will at that time, in the context of the

14

Motions to Dismiss, determine whether it agrees with Plaintiff that further discovery is

15

warranted.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated: 03/01/16

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2