Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01340/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01340-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA BARRIENTOS, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

LAND O’ LAKES, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

)

1:09cv01340 LJO DLB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME

(Document 19)

Plaintiff Cynthia Barrientos (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant employment discrimination action

in Tulare County Superior Court on April 27, 2009. Defendant Land O’ Lakes (“Defendant”)

removed the action to this Court on July 29, 2009, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order issued on October 16, 2009, the non-expert discovery

deadline was February 15, 2010.

On February 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for an extension of time to

respond to discovery. Plaintiff also requested that the dates in the Scheduling Order be extended.

Plaintiff’s request is based on counsel’s belief that there has been an irremediable

breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Counsel has provided Plaintiff with a Substitution

of Attorney form. If the form is not returned, counsel plans on filing a motion to withdraw.

Plaintiff states that responses to Defendant’s request for production of documents and

requests for answers to interrogatories “are due.” Counsel explains, however, that responses have

1

Case 1:09-cv-01340-LJO-SKO Document 20 Filed 02/17/10 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

not been provided because of the “interaction between plaintiff and her attorney on February 15,

2010.” Ex Parte Motion, at 3.

The Court GRANTS an additional twenty (20) days to provide responses to Defendant’s

discovery. It appears as though counsel is withholding responses because he is uncomfortable

doing so given the relationship with his client. Counsel is reminded, however, that this is not

sufficient justification for refusing to respond to discovery.

Insofar as Plaintiff requests that the dates set forth in the Scheduling Order be extended,

her request is DENIED. It is not clear at this time whether counsel will be relieved and there will

be sufficient time to modify dates if, and when, necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01340-LJO-SKO Document 20 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 2