Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05810/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05810-5/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA McCOLM,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING 

AUTHORITY ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C-02-05810 PJH (JCS)

AMENDED

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY REQUEST

FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO 

COMPLY WITH JANUARY 29, 2007

ORDER [Docket No. 110]

The Court has received Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Enlargement of Time to Comply

(the “Request”), filed on February 7, 2007. In the Request, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time

beyond the 10 days permitted to comply with this Court’s Order of January 29, 2007 (the “Order”). 

Plaintiff seeks a 45-day extension of time to comply with this Court’s Order. Plaintiff argues that

her physical condition makes it impossible to comply with the 10 day requirement.

Non-expert discovery in this matter ended on January 31, 2007. See Case Management and

Pretrial Order, dated April 24, 2006. By order date February 8, 2007, Judge Hamilton ruled that all

dispositive motions must be heard by March 21, 2007. 

The Request therefore seeks an extension of time which is not permissible under the current

schedule. An extension of 45 days would mean that the responses to the discovery at issue in the

Order would not be due until nearly the end of March – after dispositive motions must be filed. In

addition, the Request does not comply with this Court’s admonition that extension requests provide

a detailed medical explanation why plaintiff cannot devote the time required to comply with the

Case 4:02-cv-05810-PJH Document 114 Filed 02/09/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

2

Court’s orders. It is worth noting, that the discovery at issue was served on Plaintiff many months

ago and she chose not to provide substantive responses or to produce documents. 

On the other hand, the Court is not unsympathetic to the medical situation of Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, the Court will grant a brief extension, but only to a date sufficiently in advance of the

filing deadline for dispositive motions to allow for adequate preparation time.

Accordingly, the Request is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of

time to comply with the Order, to and including February 21, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2007 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-05810-PJH Document 114 Filed 02/09/07 Page 2 of 2