Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02268/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02268-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LASHAWN BUTLER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NORDSTROM, INC.,

Defendant /

No. 04-2268 MMC

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR CONTINUANCE

Before the Court is plaintiff’s request to continue, for a period of 90 days, the hearing

on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which is currently scheduled for August 19,

2005.

Plaintiff argues she needs additional time to depose a witness, Michelle Dannis

(“Dannis”). Because plaintiff’s motion to compel Dannis to appear at a deposition is

scheduled for hearing on August 3, 2005 before Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen, it is

premature to determine whether an extension of time to afford plaintiff the opportunity to

depose Dannis is warranted. Because, pursuant to the Local Rules of this District,

plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment is due July 29, 2005,

however, the Court will grant plaintiff a short extension of time, specifically, a two-week

Case 3:04-cv-02268-MMC Document 102 Filed 07/26/05 Page 1 of 2
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

1

Plaintiff is not precluded from seeking an additional extension if, following the

hearing before Judge Chen, grounds exist for such additional extension. Plaintiff is hereby

advised, however, that in any such request, plaintiff must set forth what specific facts she

believes she is likely to discover and how such facts would be sufficient to defeat

defendant’s motion. See See Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco, 818 F. 2d 1515,

1518 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding to properly support a request for continuance of hearing on

motion for summary judgment, party opposing summary judgment “must make clear what

information is sought and how it would preclude summary judgment”) 

2

extension, to file her opposition.1

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the following revised briefing schedule:

1. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment shall be filed

with the Clerk and served on defendant no later than August 12, 2005.

2. Defendant’s reply to plaintiff’s opposition shall be filed and served no later than

August 19, 2005.

3. Unless the Court notifies the parties otherwise, the Court will conduct a hearing

on defendant’s motion on September 2, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., Courtroom 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2005 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02268-MMC Document 102 Filed 07/26/05 Page 2 of 2