Burrell et al v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 46

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 42 Ex Parte Application (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION 10 ALMA BURRELL, VICKYE HAYTER, MARGARET HEADD United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 Plaintiffs, 12 13 14 v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, DAN PEDDYCORD, RAE WEDEL, MARTY FENSTERSHEIB AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, 15 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 11-CV-04569-LHK ORDER RE: REQUESTED SCHEDULE CHANGE 16 17 Plaintiffs have filed an ex parte application to extend time to file oppositions to defendants’ 18 motion for summary judgment and motion to sever. ECF No. 42. Defendants filed an opposition. 19 ECF No. 45. 20 The Court notes that it has already granted the parties one set of extensions on their 21 discovery deadlines. See ECF No. 30. Plaintiffs have provided no reason, beyond the volume of 22 work involved in opposing the motions, why an extension is now appropriate. Moreover, 23 extending the briefing deadlines would require a new hearing date, which the Court’s schedule 24 cannot accommodate, and which would interfere with preparation for the April 29, 2013 trial. 25 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to extend time to file oppositions is DENIED. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: February 5, 2012 28 Case No.: 11-CV-04569-LHK ORDER RE: REQUESTED SCHEDULE CHANGE _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?