Watson et al v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 251

ORDER by Judge Whyte denying 248 Motion for Extension of Time. (rmwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2009)

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
1

E-filed on:

8/27/09

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

TRACY WATSON, RENEE STALKER, PAM STALKER as Guardian Ad Litem for O.S., S.W, and R.W., minors, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., Defendants.

No. C-06-04029 RMW ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION [Re Docket No. 248]

Plaintiffs filed an ex parte administrative motion seeking additional time to file their papers in opposition to motions for summary judgment that have been filed by defendants Ramirez, Castaldi, Burgan Letona, Sparks and the County of Santa Clara1 and also seek a convoluted order excusing them from briefing certain issues that they asserted in opposition to a motion brought by another group of defendants that will be heard on another date. Plaintiffs filed this motion just two days before their opposition papers are due.2 The defendants affected by plaintiffs' motion oppose Plaintiffs do not seek an extension of time with regard to opposing the motion filed by defendant Tran, however. Motion at 2 and 7-8. The request is unusual since defendants Ramirez and Tran filed a single motion for summary judgment, not two separate motions.
2

Plaintiffs filed their motion shortly after 1:00 p.m. on August 26, 2009. By 9:30 a.m. on August 27, however, plaintiffs' counsel's office had already called chambers to determine if an order had issued, and by 11:00 a.m., had called again to check on the status, this despite the fact that with the

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION No. C-06-04029 RMW TER

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

the request. Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause for their request, and accordingly the motion is denied. With regard to the extension of time, plaintiffs seek one additional court day so that their opposition papers would be due on Monday August 31. A one-day extension would ordinarily not appear unreasonable, in and of itself, but granting it under the present circumstances would unfairly impact defendants' counsel, whose reply papers would either be due on Friday September 4 or Tuesday September 8 (due to the Labor Day holiday). The former option would significantly limit defendants' time in which to prepare reply briefs; the latter option would either require the disruption or cancellation of holiday weekend plans or effectively shorten the time available to prepare reply papers, or both. It would also shorten the time in which the court will have full briefing on the motions. Plaintiffs have also not demonstrated good cause for the extension. Plaintiffs' request recites nearly verbatim the same reasons previously offered for the previous request for additional time in which to file opposition papers to other pending motions, the "cutting and pasting" of which plaintiffs candidly acknowledge. Motion at 4 n.3. No new reasons have been offered. Counsel's difficulty in managing the workload of a complex case and a busy law practice does not justify the imposition on defendants' counsel and the court that would result from granting plaintiffs' request. With regard to the second aspect of plaintiffs' motion, plaintiffs seek an order excusing them from briefing an issue raised by the pending motions, and which is also raised by other defendants in other pending motions, relating to collateral estoppel and res judicata. The court appreciates plaintiffs' concern that the resources of the parties and the court should not be unduly burdened by needless repetition of arguments. Nevertheless, plaintiffs' proposal ­ that the court "agree to allow the plaintiffs to avoid repeating the arguments and yet apply them in the MSJ's set for 9/18/09, without waiving other 'fact' based objections to the defendants' collateral estoppel and/or res judicata

court's electronic case filing system, counsel are automatically advised as soon as an order is posted. The unnecessary calls to chambers this morning, like the repeated calls following plaintiffs' previous last-minute request for additional time, unfairly divert the court's resources from other pressing matters.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION No. C-06-04029 RMW TER 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

arguments" (Motion at 9) ­ is, as noted by defendants, vague and ambiguous. It also creates a significant risk of confusion and the possibility of collateral litigation over the meaning of the order after a dispute over its meaning arises. Accordingly, plaintiffs' request is denied. Plaintiffs' opposition papers shall be filed and served on August 28, 2009 as scheduled.

DATED:

8/27/09

RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION No. C-06-04029 RMW TER 3

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 Plaintiffs: Dennis R. Ingols Peter J. Johnson Robert Ross Powell Counsel for Defendants: Jacquelyn Kimmet Wilson Clifford S. Greenberg Melissa R. Kiniyalocts David Michael Rollo Gregory Joseph Sebastinelli [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [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: 8/27/09 TER Chambers of Judge Whyte

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION No. C-06-04029 RMW TER 4