Robinson v. Open Top Sightseeing San Francisco, LLC

Filing 151

Order by Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 146 Motion to Compel Discovery.(pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 HAROLD C. ROBINSON, et al., v. 8 9 10 Case No. 14-cv-00852-PJH Plaintiffs, 7 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL OPEN TOP SIGHTSEEING SAN FRANCISCO, LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 146 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery from non-party Open Top 13 14 Sightseeing USA, Inc. Dkt. 146. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision 15 without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for May 24, 2017 is VACATED. 16 Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the 17 relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES the motion 18 as untimely, for the reasons below and those stated on the record at the court’s May 10, 19 2017 hearing on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. The court set a discovery cutoff of March 2, 2017 in this case. Dkt. 108. Under 20 21 the Local Rules, this corresponds to a March 9, 2017 deadline for motions to compel. 22 Civ. L.R. 37-3. When the parties sought to extend discovery deadlines by stipulation in 23 January 2017, the court “decline[d] to sign the [stipulation], and if a dispute arises, the 24 only deadlines the court will enforce are those set by the court. While the parties may 25 stipulate to extend the discovery deadlines if they wish, they are hereby advised that the 26 deadline for dispositive motions to be heard remains May 3, 2017 per the court’s prior 27 orders.” Dkt. 127 (emphasis added). 28 /// 1 The parties subsequently stipulated, among themselves and without court 2 approval, to a April 7, 2017 discovery cutoff. Dkt. 130. However, the court-ordered 3 deadline for motions to compel remained March 9, 2017, regardless of that stipulation. 4 Dkt. 108; Civ. L.R. 37-3. Because plaintiffs’ motion to compel was filed on April 14, 2017, 5 over a month after the deadline, it is untimely and is DENIED on that basis. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 10, 2017 8 9 10 __________________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 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?