Gregory v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 57

ORDER by Judge Hamilton Granting 56 Motion for Extension of Time (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2010)

Gregory v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Doc. 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant. _______________________________/ Before the court is plaintiff's motion for yet another enlargement of time, in which plaintiff seeks to enlarge the time to "file his motion for summary judgment," from September 15, 2010 to October 13, 2010. By way of background, defendant filed its pending motion for summary judgment on June 25, 2010, with an original hearing date noticed for July 30. In opposition to defendant's motion, plaintiff filed a motion to continue the summary judgment hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). On August 6, 2010, the court issued an order denying plaintiff's request for a continuance on Rule 56(f) grounds, but nonetheless granting the request on grounds that a motion to compel was currently pending before the Magistrate Judge, the results of which could impact plaintiff's ability to meaningfully oppose defendant's motion. To that end, the court instructed plaintiff to file his opposition to defendant's motion two weeks after either the Magistrate Judge's order denying the motion to compel, or defendant's production of further discovery pursuant to an order granting the motion to compel. Plaintiff was furthermore instructed that "no further continuances" would be granted. On August 13, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued its order granting in part and KENNETH M. GREGORY, Plaintiff, No. C 09-1800 PJH ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

denying in part the motion to compel, and on August 27, the court issued a scheduling order instructing plaintiff to file his opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion no later than September 15, 2010. As a preliminary matter, although plaintiff is requesting an enlargement of time with respect to the filing of "his motion for summary judgment," the court clarifies for plaintiff that the deadlines imposed in this action relating to summary judgment concern the filing of plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, not plaintiff's own motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not moved for summary judgment in this action. Thus, plaintiff's request for an enlargement of time pertains to his filing of an opposition brief only. With respect to plaintiff's request for a continuance, although the court earlier explained to plaintiff that no further continuances would be granted, the court will nonetheless GRANT plaintiff's request for one last continuance, in view of the intervening orders that have issued since the court's prior warning. Plaintiff's opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion shall therefore be due no later than October 13, 2010. Defendant's reply brief shall be due no later than October 20, 2010. The matter will be deemed submitted on the papers once briefing is complete. Plaintiff is furthermore instructed that this is the last time the court will enlarge the time for plaintiff to oppose defendant's motion or otherwise continue any dates relating to defendant's motion. If plaintiff misses the October 13 deadline for filing his opposition, the court will adjudicate defendant's motion on the basis of the papers already filed by plaintiff in the action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 15, 2010 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

2