Guitron et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 148

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART 143 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

YESENIA GUITRON; and JUDI KLOSEK,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. C 10-3461 CW

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING IN
PART MOTION TO
CONTINUE TRIAL
(Docket No. 143)

v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; WELLS
FARGO & CO.; PAM RUBIO; and DOES
1-20,
Defendants.
________________________________/

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. moves to continue the trial
date in this case from February 11, 2013 until July 15, 2013, or
in the alternative, until April 1, 2013.

Defendant contends that

the continuance is necessary because one of its witnesses, its
employee Hale Walker, is currently pregnant and is anticipated to
be on leave from January 2013.

Plaintiffs Yesenia Guitron and

Judi Klosek oppose a long continuance, but do not oppose a shorter
continuance until March 2012.

Plaintiff Klosek has not stated

that she is unavailable for trial during early April 2013.
Having considered the papers submitted by the parties, the
Court GRANTS the motion in part.

The five-day jury trial is

CONTINUED to Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.

The final

pretrial conference is CONTINUED to Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at
2:00 p.m.
Although the Court continues the trial, the Court notes that
Defendant’s proffered proof of Ms. Walker’s unavailability is
deficient.

Defendant is primarily concerned that, by issuing a

subpoena for Ms. Walker during the time she is on leave, it might

1

be liable for interference with her statutorily-protected family

2

leave.

3

Further, Defendant has provided no evidence of the duration of

4

leave that Ms. Walker intends to take, that it has discussed this

5

issue with Ms. Walker or that it has tried to establish a leave

6

schedule with her that would accommodate her testimony.

7

However, the Court, not Defendant, will subpoena her.

Defendant’s evidence of its counsel’s unavailability is also

8

deficient.

9

currently is scheduled to be in trial in other actions in March,

Defendant has stated that its “lead trial counsel

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

April, May and June.”

11

provided any specific dates during which its counsel is scheduled

12

to be in trial in those months, although Defendant has suggested

13

setting trial in this matter for the week of April 1, 2013.

14

Mot. at 4.

Defendant, however, has not

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: 12/7/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2