Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

PLEVIN v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 11-cv-2359 MEJ. (2012)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20120921f14 Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Sep. 20, 2012
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DATE FOR FILING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MARIA ELENA JAMES, District Judge. The undersigned parties, through counsel, STIPULATE and AGREE and jointly request modification of this Court's Orders concerning and setting dates for dispositive motion filing and hearing in the above matter. The parties make this request based on the following circumstances: 1. Discovery in this matter closed on September 13, 2012. Two depositions of third party witnesse
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DATE FOR FILING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MARIA ELENA JAMES, District Judge.

The undersigned parties, through counsel, STIPULATE and AGREE and jointly request modification of this Court's Orders concerning and setting dates for dispositive motion filing and hearing in the above matter. The parties make this request based on the following circumstances:

1. Discovery in this matter closed on September 13, 2012. Two depositions of third party witnesses—Hui Cha Leung and Vida Lamastra—were taken on that date. A third deposition of a witness—Abigail O'Leary—was taken earlier in the week on September 10, 2012.

2. The parties were unable to take the depositions of Ms. Leung, Ms. Lamastra and Ms. O'Leary any earlier due to scheduling difficulties on the part of the witnesses. The depositions were originally scheduled to take place in August 2012.

3. Dispositive motions are due on September 20, 2012. The parties have been diligently attempting to meet and confer on a joint statement of undisputed facts as required by the Court's October 20, 2011 Case Management Order ¶J [Docket # 40].

4. Because of the short time period between the completion of depositions and the date for filing motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs had not had the opportunity to obtain and review all three transcripts of the most recent depositions. Similarly, defendants needed to first obtain the depositions and review them (which they were not able to do until Tuesday, September 18, 2012) before drafting and forwarding a joint statement of undisputed fact. Because of this delay and because of the Jewish holidays, defendants did not complete a draft of the joint statement until the morning of September 19, 2012, when it was forwarded to plaintiffs' counsel.

6. There is not sufficient time prior to filing dispositive motions for the parties to meaningfully meet and confer and complete a joint statement of undisputed fact as required by the Court.

7. The parties believe that they can and will reach agreement on a joint statement within a few days, and request that the Court permit an extra week—September 27, 2012—for the parties complete the meet and confer process, to finalize a joint statement for submission to the Court and to file their dispositive motions.

For the aforementioned reasons, the parties jointly request that the Court amend its Scheduling Order as follows:

• September 27, 2012: Last day to file dispositive motions • November 1, 2012: Last day for hearing on dispositive motions

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Based on the above stipulation, and for good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

• September 27, 2012: Last day to file dispositive motions • November 1, 2012: Last day for hearing on dispositive motions
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer