Pierotti v. Regents of the University of California

Filing 65

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Denying 64 Motion to Continue and Extend Time for Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Yosef Peretz (SBN 209288)
[e-mail]
David Garibaldi (SBN 313641)
[e-mail]
PERETZ & ASSOCIATES
22 Battery Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff DIANE PIEROTTI

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

DIANE PIEROTTI

10

Case No. 4:16-cv-02936-HSG
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1-10,

PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND
EXTEND TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

14
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3, Plaintiff DIANE PIEROTTI (“Plaintiff”) hereby moves
the Court for an order extending the time to file Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Motion for

19

Partial Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) filed on December 28, 2017, and presently set for

20

hearing on March 22, 2018. [Docket No. 59.] Plaintiff is currently required to file her Opposition

21

to the Motion by no later than January 11, 2018, and Defendant is required to file their Reply to

22

the Motion by no later than January 18, 2018.

23

Currently, the close of fact discovery deadline in this matter is March 9, 2018 and the last

24

day to hear a dispositive motion is June 7, 2018. [Docket No. 53.] However, the Parties have

25

recently stipulated to continuing the trial date in this matter in order to conduct additional
discovery, and filed said stipulation with the Court on December 29, 2017, the day after Defendant

26
27
28

filed its Motion. [Docket No. 62.] As per that stipulation, the Parties have agreed to extend the
close of fact discovery deadline to July 20, 2018, and the last day to hear a dispositive motion to
October 18, 2018.

[Docket No. 62.]

Accordingly, the granting of Plaintiff’s instant

PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND EXTEND TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
-1-

1

administrative motion to continue the Motion hearing and extend Plaintiff’s time to file an

2

Opposition will have no impact on either the current or the agreed-upon pre-trial schedule in this

3

matter.

4

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Motion hearing be continued to April 19, 2018; that
Plaintiff not be required to file her Opposition until March 19, 2018; and for Defendants to thus

5
6
7

not have to file their Reply until March 26, 2018. This schedule would allow the Court ample
time to review the filings while enabling the Parties to conduct much-needed discovery ahead of
the Motion.

8

Defendant’s Motion requests that the Court issue an Order for partial summary judgment

9

in Defendant’s favor on (1) Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief for Sexual Harassment in Violation

10

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”); (2) Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief

11

for Sexual Harassment in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); and (3)

12
13

Plaintiff’s Fifth Claim for Relief for Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect
to the third and fourth claims and that they are all time barred by the applicable statutes of

14

limitations. [Defendant’s Motion at p. 1.] Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not

15

put Defendant on notice of her sexual harassment or retaliation claims when filing her initial

16

claims against Defendant with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

17

(“EEOC”), and that the EEOC therefore never investigated those claims. [Defendant’s Motion at

18

pp. 2-3.] Defendant further claims it was not aware of Plaintiff’s retaliation claims until she filed

19

her Complaint, and that it was not aware of Plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims until she filed

20
21
22
23

her First Amended Complaint, both of which were allegedly filed untimely, after the applicable
statute of limitations had run. [Defendant’s Motion at pp. 4-5.] Accordingly, Defendant argues
that it was not properly on notice of Plaintiff’s claims and that they should therefore be dismissed.
[Defendant’s Motion at pp. 13-15.]
Plaintiff contends that she did not fail to exhaust her administrative remedies and that her

24

claims are not time barred. However, Plaintiff has not been able to conduct sufficient discovery

25

thus far into the issues of whether Defendant was properly on notice of Plaintiff’s claims upon

26

the filing of the EEOC action, during the EEOC investigation, or at any other time within the

27

applicable statute of limitations. Specifically, Plaintiff has been unable to conduct depositions of

28

Defendants’ witnesses that she believes had notice of her claims within the above time periods,
PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND EXTEND TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
-2-

1

nor has Plaintiff received any documents responsive to her document requests as of the time of

2

writing. Defendant chose not to file a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6) motion

3

to dismiss on the above issues. Instead, Defendant filed its Motion under FRCP 56 for Partial

4

Summary Judgment which requires a factual presentation of the evidence on the defenses brought
forth by Defendant. Further, Defendants have brought their Motion 6 months ahead of the current

5
6

deadline to hear a dispositive motion and 10 months ahead of the agreed-upon extended deadline
to hear a dispositive motion. Defendant did so despite stipulating with Plaintiff to continue the

7

trial date and all pretrial deadlines so the parties would be able to conduct necessary discovery.

8

Because of this, there is simply no pressing need to have the Motion heard 7 months ahead of the

9

stipulated dispositive motion deadline and force Plaintiff to file an opposition 9 months ahead of

10

that deadline and prior to conducting any of the necessary discovery relevant to the issues raised

11

in the Motion.

12
13

Plaintiff is currently waiting on documents to be produced by Defendant responsive to
Plaintiff’s document requests that were served over 2 months ago, on October 23, 2017; which
are supposedly on their way by mail. At the same time, Plaintiff has produced responsive

14

documents electronically and timely. Plaintiff has also contacted Defendant to ask to set dates

15

for depositions of 3 to 4 key witnesses within the next month that will have knowledge pertaining

16

to the Motion, and asked Defendant to agree to an alternative briefing schedule for the Motion

17

that is in line with the above-requested dates, enabling the parties to first conduct depositions and

18

then file the Opposition and Reply. Defendant has indicated it would be willing to set deposition

19

dates, but has been unable to obtain available dates from their witnesses to date. Defendant has

20
21

also provided no indication they would be willing to mutually agree to an extended briefing
schedule. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks the instant relief.
Finally, Plaintiff has been unable to properly prepare to oppose the Motion due to having

22
23

an arbitration on December 18 through 22, 2018 and January 4 and 5, 2018; a separate court trial
on January 8 and 9, 2018, and having to prepare for both proceedings through the holiday period.

24

Plaintiff would be greatly prejudiced in having to oppose this motion by January 11, 2018 having

25

not had sufficient time to prepare an opposition due to these prior scheduling conflicts.

26

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court continue the hearing on

27

Defendant’s Motion to from March 22, 2018 to April 19, 2018, extend Plaintiff’s time to file an

28

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion from January 11, 2018 to March 19, 2018, and to extend
PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND EXTEND TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
-3-

1

Defendant’s time to file a Reply from January 18, 2018 to March 26, 2018. These extensions will

2

not otherwise impact the schedule of pretrial matters in these proceedings as per the parties’

3

recently filed stipulation to continue the trial date. [Docket No. 62.]

4
Dated: January 10, 2018

PERETZ & ASSOCIATES

5
6
By: _________________
Yosef Peretz
David Garibaldi
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
DIANE PIEROTTI

10

14

18

D

DENIE

Ju

ER

y wo o d
d ge H a

H

17

RT

16

1/11/2018

NO

15

Dated:

S. Gillia

m Jr.

A

13

UNIT
ED

12

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

11

R NIA

9

FO

8

LI

7

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND EXTEND TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
-4-