Siegel v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 50

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment. Opposition due by 8/6/2013. Reply due by 8/13/2013. Motion Hearing continued to 8/27/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 5th Floo r, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 45 MOTION to Continue Motion for Summary Judgment and to Extend Discovery FRCP Rule 6 and 56(d). Motion terminated as mo ot: 43 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Briefing Deadlines MSJ filed by Peter Siegel. Motion terminated per order: 45 MOTION to Continue Motion for Summary Judgment and to Extend Discovery FRCP Rule 6 and 56(d) filed by Peter Siegel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on July 16, 2013. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2013)

*E-FILED: July 16, 2013*

1
2
3
4
5

NOT FOR CITATION

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9

PETER SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
v.
11

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
12
13

No. C12-03787 HRL
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING
ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Defendant.
____________________________________/

14
In this employment discrimination suit, defendant filed its motion for summary judgment on

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

January 4, 2013 and set an original hearing date of April 30, 2013. The parties continued the
hearing date three different times, by stipulation, and it is currently set for July 30, 2013. 1 Plaintiff
now moves for a three month extension of the current hearing date and his deadline for filing an
opposition to defendant’s motion. In support of his motion, filed seven months into the discovery
period of this case and within days of the deadline for plaintiff’s opposition, plaintiff raises, for the
first time, the specter of a discovery dispute as grounds for continuing the briefing scheduling and
hearing date. Defendant opposes the motion. As the parties are aware, this court has a mechanism
for resolving discovery disputes. 2 Plaintiff neglected to use this mechanism and instead appears to

24
1

25
26
27
28

The parties stipulated to extending plaintiff’s deadline to oppose defendant’s motion four times,
although the Court did not enter the proposed order filed with the most recent stipulation, which
gave plaintiff until July 16, 2013 to file his opposition.
2
The Court advised the parties in person and in its case management order that, in the event
discovery disputes arise, the parties shall comply with this court’s “Standing Order re: Civil
Discovery Disputes,” which sets forth the applicable requirements and procedures for filing
Discovery Dispute Joint Reports rather than noticed discovery motions. (Dkt. 27). Plaintiff was
well aware of this procedure. In fact, he asked the Court to waive the requirement that meet and
confers over Discovery Dispute Joint Reports occur in person. (See Dkt. 35).

1

be using the idea of a discovery dispute, at the eleventh hour, to buy another three months of time to

2

respond to defendant’s motion. Plaintiff has not convinced the Court that good cause exists to grant

3

another three month extension. Instead, the following schedule shall apply:

4
5

Deadline for plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment: August 6,
2013;

6

Deadline for defendant’s reply, if any: August 13, 2013;

7

Hearing on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment: August 27, 2013 at 10:00 am.

8

The Court is not inclined to grant any further extensions.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Dated: July 16, 2013

11
12

HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2

1

C 12-03787 Order will be electronically mailed to:

2

Karen Ellen Ford: [e-mail]

3

Melinda S. Riechert: [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

4
Rebecca Licht Jensen: [e-mail], [e-mail]
5
6

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3