The Eclipse Group LLP v. Target Corporation et al

Filing 87

ORDER (1) Granting In Part Defendants' #86 Ex Parte Application to Continue Motion For Summary Adjudication; (2) Continuing Opposition Deadline For Motion For Summary Adjudication; And (3) Setting Opposition Deadline for Ex Parte Application to Continue Motion For Summary Adjudication. It is ordered that the Court continues the hearing on the pending Motion for Summary Adjudication until 6/15/2017 at 01:30 p.m. Defendants shall file their opposition on or before 5/4/2017. Intevenor shall his reply, if any, on or before 5/18/2017. Additionally, Intervenor shall file a response regarding defendants' continuance motion on or before 4/4/2017. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/28/2017. (dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

THE ECLIPSE GROUP LLP, a California
limited-liability partnership,

13
14

Case No.: 15cv1411
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO CONTINUE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJDUCIATION; (2) CONTINUING
OPPOSITION DEADLINE FOR
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION; AND (3) SETTING
OPPOSITION DEADLINE FOR EX
PARTE APPLICATION TO
CONTINUE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Plaintiff,
v.

15
16

TARGET CORPORATION, et al.,

17
18

Defendants.

19
20

(ECF Nos. 79, 86)

21
22

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Continue Motion

23

for Partial Summary Judgment of Intervenor Pursuant to Rule 56(d) (“Cont. Mot.”). (ECF

24

No. 86.) Intervenor filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication several weeks ago. (ECF

25

No. 79.) The Court set a briefing schedule for the Motion for Summary Adjudication that,

26

in relevant part, set March 30, 2017 as the deadline for Defendants’ Opposition. (ECF No.

27

80.) Defendants now request the Court to either continue the hearing date and

28

corresponding briefing deadlines or simply deny the Motion, because “Defendants have
1
15cv1411

1

not had the opportunity to take [Intervenor’s] deposition, or the deposition of the person

2

most knowledgeable of [the named Plaintiff] sufficiently in advance of the date

3

[Defendants’] Opposition to the Motion is due . . . .” (Cont. Mot. 7.)

4

In support, Defendants allege that Intervenor only recently notified Defendants of

5

his unavailability for a scheduled deposition and that Intervenor “has refused to offer any

6

alternative dates for his deposition, or even meaningfully meet and confer on the issue.”

7

(Id. at 2.) Intervenor also has due his first set of responses to Defendants’ various discovery

8

requests only a day prior to when Defendants’ Opposition to the Motion for Summary

9

Adjudication is currently due. (Id. at 3.) Additionally, the named Plaintiff has allegedly

10

“raised baseless objections to Defendants’ first set of requests for production of documents,

11

special interrogatories and requests for admissions, again denying Defendants[’] access to

12

material information directly related to the issues raised in the Motion.” (Id. at 2.)

13

Although, given Defendants’ presented evidence, the Court is inclined to dismiss

14

without prejudice the pending Motion for Summary Adjudication, Defendants note that

15

Intervenor contests several of the allegations Defendants make in the Continuance Motion.

16

(See id. at 6.) And Intervenor should have a chance to respond to Defendants’ allegations.

17

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the pending Motion for

18

Summary Adjudication until Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. Defendants SHALL

19

file their Opposition on or before May 4, 2017. Intervenor SHALL file his Reply, if any,

20

on or before May 18, 2017.

21

Additionally, Intervenor SHALL file a response regarding Defendants’ Continuance

22

Motion on or before April 4, 2017. Intervenor should address the reasons for or against

23

denying the pending Motion for Summary Adjudication until such time as Defendants have

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2
15cv1411

1

completed the discovery they contend is needed to adequately address the Motion. Any

2

subsequent denial of the Motion for Summary Adjudication on these grounds would be

3

without prejudice.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 28, 2017

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
15cv1411