Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00506/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00506-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABE GUPTA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LAURETTE BEESON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-00506 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for a continuance of defendants’

summary judgment motion and defendants’ opposition. At the hearing on October 28, 2005,

the Court directed defendants to file their summary judgment motion by December 2, 2005

and scheduled the hearing for February 3, 2006. The Court stated that it was scheduling the

hearing for two months after the filing of the summary judgment motion so that plaintiff

could request any necessary additional discovery after plaintiff had reviewed defendants’

motion.

According to plaintiff, defendants served their motion on December 2, 2005, but did

not provide him with a complete copy, including exhibits and declarations, until December

14, 2005. Also on December 2, defendants told plaintiff that he would be unable to conduct

any discovery from December 16, 2005 until the end of the year because Stanford would be

closed. 

Case 3:05-cv-00506-CRB Document 63 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\0506\orderrecontinuance.wpd 2

Plaintiff’s assertion that he was not served with all the documents until December 14

is contradicted by the evidence submitted in support of defendants’ opposition. The fact that

he was studying for exams between December 2 and December 14 is also of no moment;

plaintiff was aware of when he would have exams at the October 28 hearing and he did not

raise any objections to the schedule proposed by the Court. However, on December 2, 2005,

defendants did advise plaintiff that “Stanford will be closed starting December 16, 2005 and

will be closed through the end of the year. Therefore, obtaining additional information

during this time period will not be possible.” 

While plaintiff did not make any attempt to conduct discovery during the two weeks

before Stanford closed for the holidays, defendants did not advise the Court of this discovery

“black out” period at the October 28 hearing. Accordingly, the Court will continue the

summary judgment motion to March 3, 2006. Any discovery disputes shall be decided by the

magistrate judge, as the Court stated at the October 28 hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00506-CRB Document 63 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2