Beltran et al v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 156

ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte granting in part and denying in part 152 Ex Parte Application. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for an order continuing the hearing on Defendants' motion for summary judgment from February 13, 2009 to February 27, 2009. Plaintiffs contend that such relief is necessary to permit their counsel to oppose the motion. See generally Decl. of Robert R. Powell, Docket No. 153. Defendants oppose the application. The February 13, 2009 hearing date was set by the court as the last day on which summary judgment motions would be heard. See Docket No. 123 (Aug. 15, 2008). Thus, since August of 2008, Plaintiffs have been aware of the likelihood that their counsel would need to spend time in January to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' counsel appears now to have a very busy January planned, but that does not in itself provide good cause for modifying a scheduling order that the parties have been guided by for months. However, the motion for summary judgment
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CHANGE HEARING DATE. C-03-03767 RMW TSF

E-filed on:

1/22/2009

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

LORI BELTRAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., Defendants.

No. C-03-03767 RMW ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CHANGE HEARING DATE/BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON CONDITIONS [Re Docket No. 152]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

is twenty-five pages in length and supported by several declarations and numerous exhibits. Further, the parties recently agreed to extend the deadlines for expert disclosure and expert discovery. Under the circumstances, the court will grant Plaintiffs' request on the following conditions: (1) that all scheduling dates are reset for a similar amount of time--that includes resetting the trial to commence on April 20 or 27 and correspondingly setting the pretrial conference for April 9 or 16; and (2) that a written stipulation be filed with all the new scheduling dates by January 23, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. Absent the timely filing of such stipulation, all the current scheduling dates remain except that Plaintiffs may have until Monday, January 26 at 5:00 p.m. to file their opposition to the summary judgment motion. The parties are expected to work in good faith to agree to a revised schedule. Plaintiffs also request digital Word or WordPerfect copies of the Defendants' filings. There is no requirement to provide such materials, and the defendants have a legitimate basis for declining to do so. Therefore, the request is denied.

DATED:

1/22/2009

RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CHANGE HEARING DATE. C-03-03767 RMW TSF 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Plaintiff: Robert Ross Powell Dennis R. Ingols Douglas D. Durward Counsel for Defendants: Melissa R. Kiniyalocts [e-mail] Gregory Joseph Sebastinelli [e-mail] Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. Dated: 1/22/2009 TSF Chambers of Judge Whyte [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CHANGE HEARING DATE. C-03-03767 RMW TSF 3