Goswami v. UNOCAL

Filing 31

ORDER entered GRANTING IN PART 28 MOTION for Clarification. Extra time is justified. Goswamis motion for clarification and for an extension, (Docket Entry No. 28), is granted to the extent of allowing additional time, but not as much as Goswami sou ght. Goswamis response to the motion for summary judgment is due by June 17, 2013. Chevrons reply is due July 1, 2013. No additional extensions will be granted on the basis that Goswami needs more time to obtain counsel. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SANJAY GOSWAMI,
Plaintiff,
VS.
UNOCAL (Now Chevron)
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-12-2953

ORDER
On March 5, 2013, this court set a schedule under which Chevron Corporation and Chevron
U.S.A. Inc. (“Chevron”),1 were to file a motion for summary judgment by April 12, 2013, and the
plaintiff, Sanjay Goswami, was to respond by May 3, 2013. (Docket Entry No. 26). Chevron timely
moved for summary judgment. (Docket Entry No. 27). On April 28, Goswami moved for
clarification of this court’s March 5 order and for a three-month extension of his deadline to respond
to the summary judgment motion. (Docket Entry No. 28). On April 25, Goswami filed a “motion
against the summary judgment.” (Docket Entry No. 29). On April 29, Chevron responded to
Goswami’s filings. (Docket Entry No. 30). In the response, Chevron: (1) sought clarification as to
whether Goswami’s April 25 filing was a response to the summary judgment motion; (2) asked
whether, if Goswami had responded to the motion, the time to reply had begun to run; and (3)
opposed Goswami’s request for a three-month extension but agreed to a shorter extension.

1

Chevron was erroneously captioned “UNOCAL (Now Chevron).” This discrepancy is
not material.

Chevron also sent an email to this court’s case manager on May 1, to explain the status of
its summary judgment motion, Goswami’s response, and the pending reply. Goswami emailed this
court a response to the Chevron’s email on May 5.
This court has carefully reviewed the record, the summary judgment motion, Goswami’s
filings, and the parties’ statements. Construing the filings liberally and in Goswami’s favor, see,
e.g., Daniel v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2013 WL 1856156, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 30, 2013) (“[T]he Court
afford[s] Plaintiff’s pro se pleadings, motions, and briefs the liberal construction to which they [are]
entitled . . . .” (citing Brown v. Sudduth, 675 F.3d 472, 477 (5th Cir. 2012))), this court concludes
that Goswami’s “motion against the summary judgment” is not a response. It appears to provide
additional support for Goswami’s argument that his response deadline should be extended. Chevron
argues that Goswami has presented no valid basis for an extension.
Goswami stated that he needed three more months to secure legal representation, pointing
to the arguments Chevron made in the summary judgment motion and his own poor health. This
court is aware of the difficulties pro se litigants face in responding to summary judgment motions.
See, e.g., Skodmin v. Oliva, 2006 WL 2711481, at (D. Colo. Sept. 20, 2006) (“[I]n light of Plaintiff’s
pro se status, the Court will afford him some leniency, particularly because of the difficulty in
obtaining affidavits and other materials traditionally used in responding to a motion for summary
judgment.”). Goswami, however, has known the grounds Chevron would present in its motion for
months now. Goswami has already made efforts to retain counsel, with no success. He offers no
reason to believe that he will be able to secure legal counsel if given three more months. Goswami’s
heath problems have been present from the beginning of this case, and he does not state that the
problems have become worse. He has been able to pursue the litigation despite his health problems.

2

Goswami states that if he continues to be unable to retain counsel, which appears likely, he
will need more time than this court originally gave him to respond pro se. Extra time is justified.
Goswami’s motion for clarification and for an extension, (Docket Entry No. 28), is granted to the
extent of allowing additional time, but not as much as Goswami sought. Goswami’s response to the
motion for summary judgment is due by June 17, 2013. Chevron’s reply is due July 1, 2013. No
additional extensions will be granted on the basis that Goswami needs more time to obtain counsel.
SIGNED on May 9, 2013, at Houston, Texas.

______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge

3