Covert v. Graham et al

Filing 60

STIPULATION AND ORDER, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 50 MOTION to Dismiss. Replies due by 10/3/2012.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/21/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1
2
3
4

LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTINE BRADY
Christine Brady, State Bar No. 276284
1500 20th Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff
James William Covert

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
DAMON G. MCCLAIN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
KYLE A. LEWIS
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 201041
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
Graham and Harrison

13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
OAKLAND DIVISION
16
17
18

JAMES W. COVERT,

C 06-6626 SBA

19
20

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER
CHANGING TIME TO FILE
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY SUPPORTING
MOTION TO DISMISS

v.

21
D. GRAHAM, et al.,
22

Judge:

The Honorable Saundra B.
Armstrong
Action Filed: October 24, 2006

Defendants.
23
24
25

Under Civil L.R. 6-2, Plaintiff James William Covert and Defendants Graham and

26

Harrison, by and through their respective counsel of record, stipulate to changing time so that

27

Defendants’ reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss, currently due on September 25, 2012,

28

may now be filed by October 3, 2012.
1
Stip. & [Proposed] Order Changing Time File Defs.’ Reply Mot. Dismiss (C 06-6626 SBA)

1

I.

REASONS FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME.
Defendants seek additional time to prepare their reply in support of their motion to dismiss

2
3

because Defendants’ counsel has various matters in other litigation due at the same time as the

4

reply brief. Specifically, counsel is preparing responses to three sets of discovery, responses to

5

meet-and-confer correspondence, and a motion for summary judgment in Gonzalez v. Zika, No.

6

11-cv-5561 CW (N.D. Cal.), all due on September 24, 2012. Counsel is also preparing discovery

7

responses that are due during the week of September 24, 2012, in Munoz v. Tilton, No. C 07-3846

8

EJD (N.D. Cal.), and being provided in advance of an alternative dispute resolution

9

teleconference. Because these activities prevent Defendants’ counsel from fully assessing

10

Plaintiff’s opposition and further addressing this matter’s complex exhaustion issues under the

11

current schedule, Defendants’ counsel seeks additional time to prepare the reply brief. Plaintiff’s

12

counsel does not object to the enlargement of time.

13

II.

PREVIOUS TIME MODIFICATIONS.
On December 11, 2009, Defendants filed a request for a three-day extension of time to file

14
15

a dispositive motion. (Court Docket No. 23.) The Court granted Defendants’ request on

16

December 21, 2009. (Court Docket No. 30.) On April 16, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to

17

change time to file a dispositive motion, requesting to extend the filing deadline by forty-five

18

days. (Court Docket No. 45.) The Court granted Defendants’ motion on April 24, 2012. (Court

19

Docket No. 48.)
On July 3, 2012, Plaintiff moved to enlarge time to oppose Defendants’ motion to dismiss

20
21

by thirty days. (Court Docket No. 54.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion on July 18, 2012.

22

(Court Docket No. 57.)

23

//

24

//

25
26
27
28
2
Stip. & [Proposed] Order Changing Time File Defs.’ Reply Mot. Dismiss (C 06-6626 SBA)

1

III. EFFECT THE REQUESTED TIME MODIFICATION WILL HAVE ON THE SCHEDULE.
Besides the dispositive motion briefing dates, the Court has set no deadlines in this matter

2
3

and no hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss is scheduled. Other than extending the date that

4

Defendants’ reply brief is due, the parties’ stipulation will have no impact on the schedule in this

5

matter.

6

IV.

7

AUTHORIZATION FOR ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES AND ATTESTATION.
The parties stipulate that electronic signatures may be used in lieu of physical signatures on

8

this agreement. Under Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), Defendants’ counsel attests that Plaintiff’s counsel

9

concurs in the content and filing of this stipulation and proposed order.

10
11
Dated: September 19, 2012
12

By

/s/ Christine Brady
Christine Brady
Attorney for Plaintiff James William Covert

13
14
15
16

Dated: September 19, 2012
By

17

/s/ Kyle A. Lewis
Kyle A. Lewis
Attorney for Defendants Graham and Harrison

18
19
20
21

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

9/21/12
Date

25

______________________________________
THE HONORABLE SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

26
27

SF2009202463
20638241.doc

28
3
Stip. & [Proposed] Order Changing Time File Defs.’ Reply Mot. Dismiss (C 06-6626 SBA)