PARKER v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, 15-cv-05673-TEH. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170418d66
Visitors: 2
Filed: Apr. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING LIMITED EXTENSION TO FILE DISCOVERY DISPUTES THELTON E. HENDERSON , District Judge . After reviewing the parties' submissions concerning Plaintiff's request for a one-week extension to file discovery disputes (ECF Nos. 46 & 47), the Court finds good cause to GRANT a limited extension, even though Plaintiff violated this Court's standing order by filing her request on the date of the deadline she seeks to extend. Defendants have submitted evidence that they produced the disput
Summary: ORDER GRANTING LIMITED EXTENSION TO FILE DISCOVERY DISPUTES THELTON E. HENDERSON , District Judge . After reviewing the parties' submissions concerning Plaintiff's request for a one-week extension to file discovery disputes (ECF Nos. 46 & 47), the Court finds good cause to GRANT a limited extension, even though Plaintiff violated this Court's standing order by filing her request on the date of the deadline she seeks to extend. Defendants have submitted evidence that they produced the dispute..
More
ORDER GRANTING LIMITED EXTENSION TO FILE DISCOVERY DISPUTES
THELTON E. HENDERSON, District Judge.
After reviewing the parties' submissions concerning Plaintiff's request for a one-week extension to file discovery disputes (ECF Nos. 46 & 47), the Court finds good cause to GRANT a limited extension, even though Plaintiff violated this Court's standing order by filing her request on the date of the deadline she seeks to extend. Defendants have submitted evidence that they produced the disputed documents in January and not, as Plaintiff contends, on the April 3, 2017 discovery cut-off date. In addition, counsel's failure to plan for a vacation, or to plan discovery so that there was not a last-minute rush just prior to the cut-off date, does not present good cause for extending the deadline.
However, the Court will grant the parties until April 20, 2017, to file discovery disputes that they could not have filed earlier because they did not receive the necessary deposition transcripts. This extension shall not prevent the magistrate judge from denying relief if she finds that counsel has been dilatory in scheduling depositions or requesting transcripts and that such delay warrants denial of the requested relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
