DOE v. George Street Photo & Video, LLC

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 35 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JANE DOE,

Case No. 16-cv-02698-MEJ
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINE BY
TWENTY (20) MINUTES

v.
9
GEORGE STREET PHOTO & VIDEO,
LLC,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant.

Dkt. No. 35

12
13

Plaintiff filed three documents in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

14

approximately fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes after the midnight-deadline for doing so. See

15

Opp’n, Dkt. No. 32 (HTML Receipt shows filing on 10/28/16 at 0:15 a.m.); Doe Decl., Dkt. No.

16

33 (HTML Receipt shows filing on 10/28/16 at 0:17 a.m.); Burgoyne Decl., Dkt. No. 34 (HTML

17

Receipt shows filing on 10/28/16 at 0:19 a.m.). Plaintiff’s Counsel missed the deadline because of

18

work- and family-related issues. See Burgoyne Decl. re: Extension ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 36. When

19

counsel for Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with counsel for Defendant to obtain a

20

stipulation and order to extend the time for filing the documents by thirty minutes, counsel for

21

Defendant declined to so stipulate. Id. ¶ 3 & Ex. A (email with Defendant’s counsel’s response:

22

“No, I will not so stipulate to plaintiff’s untimely filing of her Opposition to my client’s motion

23

and the supporting Declarations”). Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3, Plaintiff therefore filed a motion to

24

extend her deadline by twenty (20) minutes. See Mot., Dkt. No. 35. Plaintiff filed that motion on

25

November 3, 2016. See id.

26

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3, Defendant was required to oppose the request “no later than 4

27

days after receiving the motion.” See N.D. Civ. L.R. 6-3(b). Defendant accordingly was required

28

to oppose the request by November 7, 2016. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). Defendant did not

1

oppose the request.1
Accordingly, based on the declaration filed by Plaintiff’s counsel in connection with the

2
3

motion to extend Plaintiff’s deadline by twenty (20) minutes, and the lack to Defendant of any

4

prejudice caused by the twenty (20) minute delay, the Court finds good cause for extending the

5

deadline by twenty (20) minutes. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: November 10, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

A lack of basic courtesy caused Plaintiff’s counsel to incur unnecessary time and expense to file
a motion regarding a request that was, in the end, unopposed; it also wasted the Court’s time and
resources.
2