Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05215/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05215-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Defendant had noted in its opposition brief that Plaintiff’s original moving papers did not 1

comply with this requirement.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ERNEST A. FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, 

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-5215 JF (PVT)

ORDER RESCHEDULING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY OR FOR SANCTIONS 

(Re: Docket No. 39)

On March 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery or for sanctions. Defendant

opposed the motion in part on the grounds that the motion was untimely. This court vacated the

hearing date, and solicited supplemental briefing regarding the timeliness of the motion. The parties

have now filed their respective supplemental briefs. In addition, Plaintiff filed a revised set of

moving papers in which he sets forth the specific requests at issue followed by the objections and

responses thereto, in compliance with Civil Local Rule 37-2. Based on the briefs and arguments 1

presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted relief from the discovery motion cutoff

set forth in Civil Local Rule 26-2 for purposes of the present motion. Plaintiff has shown good cause

for such relief based on the ambiguity of the “motions hearing deadline” of August 10, 2007, which

Case 5:05-cv-05215-JF Document 56 Filed 05/04/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 2

was adopted by the court at the case management conference in this case. It is entirely

understandable that Plaintiff, representing himself in pro per, reasonably believed that the deadline

applied to all motions, including discovery motions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion will be heard by Magistrate Judge

Patricia V. Trumbull at 10:00 a.m. on June 12, 2007 in Courtroom 5 of this court. Defendants shall

serve and file their opposition papers no later than May 22, 2007. Plaintiff shall serve and file his

reply papers no later than May 31, 2007.

Dated: 5/4/07

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-05215-JF Document 56 Filed 05/04/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 3

copies mailed on to:

Ernest A. Flores

P.O. Box 6715

San Jose, CA 95150

Scott N. Schools, Esq.

Joann M. Swanson, Esq.

Claire T. Cormier, Esq.

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

150 Almaden Blvd., Ste. 900

San Jose, CA 95113

 _______________________________

 CORINNE LEW

 Courtroom Deputy 

Case 5:05-cv-05215-JF Document 56 Filed 05/04/07 Page 3 of 3