Haley v. Cohen & Steers Capital Management, Inc. et al

Filing 135

ORDER by Judge Hamilton Re 130 Motion for Administrative Relief (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2011)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

JANET HALEY,
Plaintiff(s),

8
9

ORDER RE MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

COHEN & STEERS CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.

No. C 10-3856 PJH

12

Defendant(s).
_______________________________/

13
Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief in which she requests an
14
extension of the deadline to respond to defendant Edlin’s motion for summary judgment
15
which was filed on December 2, 2011. Plaintiff’s opposition is currently due on December
16
16, 2011 and the reply is due on December 23, 2011, with the hearing noticed for February
17
1, 2012, as required by this court’s calendar. The pretrial schedule sets the fact discovery
18
cutoff date at January 13, 2012, and the last day for dispositive motions at March 21, 2012.
19
Accordingly, dispositive motions must be filed no later than February 15, 2012. Edlin’s
20
motion for summary judgment is thus early in the sense that it precedes both the close of
21
fact discovery and the deadline for filing dispositive motions.
22
Plaintiff brings her motion pursuant to Civil L. R. 7-11 and Fec. R. Civ. P. 6(b),
23
however, defendant is correct that once a summary judgment motion is filed, Fed. R. Civ.
24
P. 56(d) controls. Defendant is also correct that plaintiff’s showing falls short of what is
25
required by Rule 56(d). However, because the motion for summary judgment was filed
26
before the close of discovery, the court is inclined to exercise some leniency with regard to
27
plaintiff’s showing. Many parties wait until close to the end of the discovery period to
28
conduct discovery. The reason for doing so is just as often a desire to conserve resources

1

until it is clear that the case will not resolve otherwise, as it is a lack of diligence or

2

attention. To the extent that plaintiff has outstanding discovery which was timely

3

propounded and calls for a response before the close of discovery but no sooner than

4

required by the federal rules, or depositions reasonably noticed before the close of

5

discovery, she should be able to complete that discovery before opposing defendant’s

6

motion.

7

However, it appears from plaintiff’s motion that she may be seeking relief from the

8

discovery limitations imposed by the federal rules and/or an extension of the discovery

9

cutoff date. This order does not extend either. Additionally, the schedule proposed by
plaintiff is unacceptable as it allows only one week between the reply brief and the hearing,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

when the local rules require two weeks.

12

Under the circumstances, the court finds that an extension of the opposition deadline

13

to January 18, 2012 is warranted and the motion for administrative relief is GRANTED.

14

The reply brief is due January 25, 2012. The hearing is continued to February 8, 2012.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: December 13, 2011
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2