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

Filing 189

ORDER by Judge Hamilton Denying 145 Motion for Administrative Relief (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
JANET HALEY,
8
Plaintiff,

No. C 10-3856 PJH

9
v.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
COHEN & STEERS CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

Defendants.
_______________________________/

13
14

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief for extension of the

15

fact discovery period for the purpose of completing certain limited discovery, as well as

16

defendants’ oppositions thereto. Plaintiff filed her request on January 12, 2012 – one day

17

prior to the fact discovery cutoff. Plaintiff seeks a forty-five day extension from the date on

18

which a ruling is secured in connection with an underlying motion for leave to obtain and

19

complete additional deposition testimony, so that in the event plaintiff’s underlying motion is

20

granted, plaintiff might complete the requested additional discovery. The hearing on

21

plaintiff’s underlying motion has been scheduled for March 20, 2012.

22

Plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief is DENIED. If granted, plaintiff’s request

23

would likely require the court to extend subsequent deadlines set forth in the pretrial order,

24

particularly in view of the fact that the hearing on plaintiff’s underlying motion is scheduled

25

one day prior to the March 21 deadline for hearing dispositive motions, and several weeks

26

after the February 15 deadline for submitting dispositive motions. As the court made clear

27

in its prior order denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, the court requires 120

28

between the hearing for dispositive motions and the trial date, and is unlikely to adjust one

1
2

date without adjusting the other.
Furthermore, and as highlighted in defendants’ oppositions to the instant request,

3

plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that good cause exists for modifying the pretrial schedule

4

in the manner plaintiff requests, given plaintiff’s lack of diligence in seeking the underlying

5

discovery, and the prejudice likely to inure to defendants in the event plaintiff’s request is

6

granted.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: January 24, 2012
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2