Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05215/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05215-3/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

Case No. C 05-5215 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ERNEST A. FLORES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 05-5215 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff Ernest Flores, proceeding pro se, seeks a continuance of the briefing and hearing

on the motion for summary judgment brought by Defendant Michael Chertoff. Defendant’s

motion is set for hearing on June 1, 2007, and Plaintiff’s opposition was due on Friday, May 11,

2007. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s letter request for continuance received May 9, 2007,

Defendant’s opposition to the request for continuance filed May 11, 2007 and Plaintiff’s letter

received May 14, 2007. The Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiff’s letters as of the dates the

letters were received.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) a party may request that the hearing on a motion for

summary judgment be continued to permit that party to conduct further discovery. Fed. R. Civ.

Case 5:05-cv-05215-JF Document 59 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 4
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 05-5215 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

P. 56(f). A motion for continuance under Rule 56(f) must be supported by affidavits setting

forth the particular facts expected to be discovered and how those facts would preclude summary

judgment. Brae Transportation, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir.

1986). These requirements are not satisfied by references to a need for discovery contained in

memoranda or declarations. State of California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998);

Brae, 790 F.2d at 1443. The movant additionally must show that he or she has been diligent in

conducting discovery. Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 921 (9th Cir.1996);

Brae, 790 F.2d at 1443. Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 56(f) is a proper ground

for denying the motion for continuance and proceeding with the motion for summary judgment. 

Campbell, 138 F.3d at 779; Brae, 790 F.2d at 1443. 

Plaintiff has failed to meet these standards. He states in his letter briefs that Magistrate

Judge Trumbull has scheduled a discovery motion for June 12, 2007, and that he cannot prepare

an opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion before Judge Trumbull rules on the

pending discovery motion. However, Plaintiff has failed to provide an affidavit setting forth the

particular facts expected to be discovered if Plaintiff prevails before Judge Trumbull, and how

those facts would preclude summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s

motion for continuance. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment

motion on or before May 18, 2007. Any reply shall be filed on or before May 25, 2007. The

motion will be heard as scheduled on June 1, 2007. The Court will not rule on Defendant’s

motion until after Judge Trumbull issues her ruling with respect to the pending discovery motion. 

If Judge Trumbull orders Defendant to produce additional discovery, the Court will permit

Plaintiff to submit supplemental briefing on the summary judgment motion before issuing its

ruling.

Case 5:05-cv-05215-JF Document 59 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 4
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 05-5215 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for continuance is DENIED. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to

Defendant’s summary judgment motion on or before May 18, 2007. Any reply shall be filed on

or before May 25, 2007. The motion will be heard as scheduled on June 1, 2007. 

DATED: 5/15/07

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-05215-JF Document 59 Filed 05/15/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 05-5215 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Claire T. Cormier claire.cormier@usdoj.gov

Ernest A. Flores

Post Office Box 6715

San Jose, CA 95150

Case 5:05-cv-05215-JF Document 59 Filed 05/15/07 Page 4 of 4