Viteri-Butler v. University of California, Hastings College of the Law et al

Filing 71

ORDER re 69 Letter filed by Sara Viteri-Butler. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 11/19/2013. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 SARA VITERI-BUTLER, Plaintiff, 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 v. No. C 12-2651 PJH ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY CUTOFF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW, et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ 13 14 Plaintiff filed a motion on October 30, 2013, two days prior to the previous November 15 1, 2013 discovery cutoff date, seeking a 90-day extension of time to complete discovery, 16 which, according to plaintiff, included two depositions. Plaintiff noticed the motion for 17 hearing on December 4, 2013. The court construed the motion as a motion for 18 administrative relief under Civil Local Rule 7-11, and advised that defendant would be given 19 four days to file an opposition, and that the court would resolve the motion on the papers. 20 On November 5, 2013, the court issued an order granting an extension, but directing 21 that all discovery must be completed by November 20, 2013. The court also extended the 22 dispositive motions filing deadline to December 6, 2013, and set a new dispositive motions 23 hearing date on January 22, 2014. (The order mistakenly stated that the hearing would be 24 on January 22, 2013, but the intent was clear from the order.) In addition, the order stated 25 that "[n]o further continuances will be granted." 26 On November 15, 2013, counsel for plaintiff filed a letter (not a motion) with the 27 court, seeking a further extension of the discovery cutoff date, and also apparently seeking 28 some court intervention regarding the scope of deposition questioning of one of defendant's 1 witnesses, whose deposition was at that point scheduled for November 18, 2013. 2 According to defendant, the day following the filing of this letter with the court, plaintiff's 3 counsel notified defendant's counsel in writing that he was "taking the deposition 'off 4 calendar.'" Defendant states that it will "await direction from the [c]ourt before filing any 5 material as to this issue." 6 Given that the court already previously advised plaintiff that no further continuances 7 would be granted, and given that plaintiff first noticed the deposition for a date before the 8 discovery deadline, then attempted to present a dispute to the court regarding the scope of 9 questions that had not yet been asked, and then took the deposition off calendar, the court finds that plaintiff's request must be DENIED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: November 19, 2013 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?