Acosta v. American Red Cross Santa Clara Valley Chapter

Filing 39

ORDER RE: 34 GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CHANGE TIME. (rslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION *E-Filed 2/23/2010*

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
C 09-00867 RS ORDER

For the Northern District of California

JASON ACOSTA Plaintiff,

No. C 09-00867 RS ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CHANGE TIME

v.

AMERICAN RED CROSS SANTA CLARA VALLEY CHAPTER, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ On February 16, 2010, plaintiff Jason Acosta filed a document entitled "Declaration of Amy Carlson in Support of Request for Denial or Continuance of Summary Judgment Under FRCP 56(f)." The Court construed the Carlson declaration as an administrative motion to change time. Defendant American Red Cross, Santa Clara Valley Chapter ("ARC"), has now filed an opposition. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted. The parties' Case Management Scheduling Order initially provided that all dispositive motions had to be heard by March 10, 2010. Later, with the Court's approval, the parties stipulated to extend this deadline to March 18, 2010. ARC accordingly filed a motion for summary judgment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

and noticed it for March 18, 2010. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Acosta's opposition to the summary judgment motion is due February 25, 2010. The instant motion indicates that Carlson has two depositions scheduled for February 26, 2010, the day after her client's opposition is due.1 The two prospective deponents are Heidi Ordwein, ARC's Vice President of Administration, and Ross Asuncion, an ARC employee. Carlson avers that these depositions are likely to raise a genuine issue of material fact and have a bearing on summary judgment. Therefore she asks the Court to deny ARC's motion for summary judgment, or alternatively to continue the motion hearing by two weeks--the latter presumably so that she can have a chance to incorporate the results of the depositions into her opposition. Although it is unclear why Acosta's counsel has chosen to leave these depositions until the last minute in an eight-month discovery period, there is nonetheless no indication that the request for continuance constitutes a bad-faith delaying tactic. It is unnecessary, at this juncture, to engage in a technical discussion about whether the Carlson declaration meets all the requirements of Rule 56(f); rather, this is essentially an issue of docket management, which is in the Court's discretion. The requested time extension is relatively short; the discovery at issue is very discrete; and Acosta is not requesting any extension of the discovery period itself. Moreover, it will serve the interest of judicial efficiency to decide the summary judgment motion on a complete record. Therefore, the summary judgment hearing will be continued by two weeks, from March 18, 2010, to April 1, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 2/23/2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For the Northern District of California

RICHARD SEEBORG

1

The discovery period in this case began in June 2009 and is scheduled to end on March 3, 2010. 2
C 09-00867 RS ORDER