Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04205/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04205-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

Case No. C 03-4205 JF (HRL)

ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 10/28/05**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CARON RAKICH,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

EMC CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 03-4205 JF (HRL)

ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR

DEFENDANTS TO FILE

SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION

On October 24, 2005, Defendants filed a motion seeking leave to calendar a motion for

summary judgment on December 2, 2005 (the last date for dispositive motions) or, in the

alternative, seeking an enlargement of time for hearing on their motion for summary judgment. 

Because Defendants’ papers contained a letter from Plaintiff’s counsel setting forth Plaintiff’s

position, the Court granted the motion on October 26, 2005 without waiting for a formal

response from Plaintiff. The Court set Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on December

9, 2005, the date previously reserved by Plaintiff for her as-yet unfiled motion to continue the

trial date and related cut-off dates and to reopen discovery.

On October 26, 2005, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to continue the trial date and

related cut-off dates and to reopen discovery. Plaintiff asserts inter alia that Defendants have
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

2

Case No. C 03-4205 JF (HRL)

ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE

(JFLC2)

refused to produce documents critical to Plaintiff’s prosecution of her case and that Plaintiff’s

counsel has a conflicting trial set in San Mateo County. Plaintiff asserts that even if the Court

were to hear Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on December 9, 2005, the Court likely

would find it necessary to continue that motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

56(f). Defendants filed a procedural objection to Plaintiff’s ex parte motion, asserting that

Plaintiff must bring her motion to continue the trial date as a noticed motion.

While Defendants technically are correct that Plaintiff’s motion properly should have

been brought as a noticed motion, the Court notes that Plaintiff reserved a date for such a motion

and elected to proceed ex parte only after the Court set Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment on the same date that Plaintiff had reserved for her motion. In light of Plaintiff’s

contentions regarding Defendants’ refusal to produce relevant documents, and the impending cutoff and trial dates, the Court will treat Plaintiff’s motion as a motion pursuant to Rule 56(f) and

will direct Defendants to file a substantive response to the motion. In particular, the Court is

interested in Defendant’s views as to whether Plaintiff needs the discovery at issue to oppose

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment under the standards applicable to Rule 56(f).

Accordingly, Defendants may file any substantive response to Plaintiff’s ex parte motion

on or before November 2, 2005. The matter thereafter will be taken under submission without

oral argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 28, 2005

/s/ electronic signature authorized 

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge
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

3

Case No. C 03-4205 JF (HRL)

ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Kurt Bockes kbockes@littler.com, jwong@littler.com

Margaret Hart Edwards MHEdwards@littler.com, PPrill@littler.com

Alden Knisbacher aknisbacher@ yahoo.com,