United States of America et al v. Bell Transit Corporation et al

Filing 149

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting in part and denying in part 145 Administrative Motion. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2022)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

6
7
8
9

v.
MATTHEW WAYNE, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06994-PJH
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 145

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Before the court is plaintiff’s administrative motion seeking an extension of time for

13

the briefing and hearing on defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. See Dkt.

14

145. Defendants have filed a response to the administrative motion, and state that they

15

do “not necessarily oppose a short enlargement of time.” Dkt. 148 at 1.

16

Because plaintiff’s proposed schedule would result in less than 120 days between

17

the summary judgment hearing and the start of trial, in violation of this court’s standing

18

order on civil cases, the court disapproves of plaintiff’s proposed deadlines. Accordingly,

19

while the court GRANTS in part plaintiff’s motion, it will not adopt plaintiff’s proposed

20

schedule. Instead, the schedule shall be as follows:

21

Plaintiff’s MSJ opposition due:

October 20, 2022

22

Defendants’ MSJ reply due:

October 27, 2022

23

MSJ hearing date:

November 10, 2022

24

The current dates for the pretrial conference and for trial remain in place.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: September 2, 2022
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge