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)

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