Schilling v. Loredo et al

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying as moot 21 Plaintiff's Motion ; granting 25 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion. Dispositive Motion filed by 9/25/2018. Replies due by 12/17/2018. Responses due by 11/16/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2018)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

DARRYL WAYNE SCHILLING,

Case No. 17-cv-04054-YGR (PR)

Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
7

GARY LOREDO, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION;
AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
DEPOSITION

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Request for Extension of Time for Deposition and
Production of Documents,” in which he has requested an extension of time for his deposition by
Defendants so that he can bring documents with him to the deposition and request the production
of documents to him. Dkt. 21. Also before the Court is Defendants’ motion for a second
extension of time to file a dispositive motion. Dkt. 25.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court first notes that the record shows that Plaintiff’s deposition has already taken
place. Dkt. 24 at 2. Defendants have informed the Court that during the deposition, “the parties
discussed Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, discovery issues, and other aspects of this
litigation.” Id. They stated that “[b]ecause Plaintiff’s deposition has already been conducted to
the parties’ satisfaction, Plaintiff’s request is moot.” Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response
to Defendants’ aforementioned statements. Therefore, the Court construes his lack of a response
as his concession that his request is now moot. Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot
Plaintiff’s “Request for Extension of Time for Deposition and Production of Documents.” Dkt.
21.
Secondly, Defendants have moved for a second extension of time, through September 25,
2018, to file a dispositive motion. The Court has read and considered Defendants’ motion and the
accompanying declaration of counsel and, good cause appearing, Defendants’ requested brief
extension of time is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their dispositive motion no later than
September 25, 2018.

1
2

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court and
served on Defendants no later than sixty (60) days from the date Defendants’ motion is filed.

3

Defendants’ reply brief shall be filed no later than twenty (28) days after Plaintiff’s

4

opposition is filed on the Court’s electronic filing system. The motion shall be deemed submitted

5

as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so

6

orders at a later date.

7

The Court notes that this is Defendants’ second extension in this case. The granting of

8

regular requests for extension should not be expected.

9

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 21 and 25.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 17, 2018
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2