KIP Sides v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 15-cv-03893-HSG. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180703981
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 156 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Pending before the Court is "Plaintiff's Motion for a Case Management Conference to Discuss Extending Time to Reply to File Response/Reply to Docket Number 155." Dkt. No. 156. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion, finding no good cause shown for extending the briefing schedule in this case by more than five months as Plaintiff requests. The Court ORDERS Defendants to produce the administrative record 1 to Plaintiff on or
Summary: ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 156 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Pending before the Court is "Plaintiff's Motion for a Case Management Conference to Discuss Extending Time to Reply to File Response/Reply to Docket Number 155." Dkt. No. 156. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion, finding no good cause shown for extending the briefing schedule in this case by more than five months as Plaintiff requests. The Court ORDERS Defendants to produce the administrative record 1 to Plaintiff on or ..
More
ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 156
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.
Pending before the Court is "Plaintiff's Motion for a Case Management Conference to Discuss Extending Time to Reply to File Response/Reply to Docket Number 155." Dkt. No. 156. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion, finding no good cause shown for extending the briefing schedule in this case by more than five months as Plaintiff requests. The Court ORDERS Defendants to produce the administrative record1 to Plaintiff on or before Friday, July 6, 2018. To the extent the parties can agree on a targeted and reasonable extension justified by specific facts, see Dkt. No. 156 at 3 ("The Defendants were willing to jointly stipulate more time"), the Court will consider such a stipulated request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The "administrative record consists of the papers the insurer had when it denied the claim." Montour v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 588 F.3d 623, 632 n.4 (9th Cir. 2009).
Source: Leagle
