Knighten v. Omni Hotel

Filing 45

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 42 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION (Docket No. 42) AND CONTINUING 29 MOTION HEARING (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LINDA M. KNIGHTEN,

5
6

No. C 12-2296 CW

Plaintiff,
v.

7

OMNI HOTEL, et al.,

8

Defendants.
________________________________/

9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION
(Docket No. 42)
AND CONTINUING
MOTION HEARING

On May 1, 2013, Plaintiff Linda Knighten moved for leave to

11

file a supplemental declaration in opposition to Defendant Omni

12

Hotel’s motion for summary judgment.

13

why she failed to file this evidence with her opposition brief,

14

which was submitted two days earlier and was itself filed four

15

days late.

16

never previously disclosed the roughly fifty pages of documents

17

attached to her supplemental declaration, even though she was

18

required to do so under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) as

19

part of her initial disclosures.

20

Krieken, Ex. B, E-Mail Exchange Between R. Rogers & J.C. Lee.

21

Plaintiff has not explained

Plaintiff’s motion also failed to acknowledge that she

1

See Declaration of Lisa van

Allowing Plaintiff to submit previously undisclosed evidence

22

at this late stage -- a full month after fact discovery closed and

23

more than two weeks after Defendant filed its opening summary

24
1

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff filed an unauthorized reply in support of her
administrative motion in which she asserts (without a supporting
declaration) that she was prevented from meeting her discovery
obligations by the large volume of documents she needed to review. This
does not excuse Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 26. If
Plaintiff needed additional time to review and disclose documents, she
should have notified Defendant and moved for an extension of the fact
discovery deadline.

1

judgment brief -- would prejudice Defendant.

2

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

3

Accordingly,

In addition, because Plaintiff filed her opposition brief

4

late, Defendant’s reply brief is now due May 6, 2013 and the

5

hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is CONTINUED to

6

2:00 p.m. on May 23, 2013.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: 5/2/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2