Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04011/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04011-14/pdf.json

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

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY J. HONG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RIGHT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS,

INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C-04-04011 PJH (EDL)

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MARCH 13,

2006 LETTER

After business hours on March 13, 2006, Defendant filed a seven-page letter with forty-five

pages of exhibits seeking reconsideration of the Court’s January 24, 2006 Order granting in part and

denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Compel. Defendant also sought expedited consideration of

this matter in view of the March 28, 2006 deadline for making pretrial disclosures in advance of the

April 27, 2006 pretrial conference. 

The Civil Local Rules and this Court’s standing order do not provide for disputes to be

addressed to the Court in this manner; Defendant did not seek leave to present this issue by letter

rather than by motion with a request to shorten time. However, in light of the impending pretrial

dates, the Court will construe Defendant’s letter as a motion and a request to shorten time. The

Court cautions that it will not accept this type of filing in the future. 

It appears that the facts supporting Defendant’s request for reconsideration came to light no

later than February 22, 2006 at the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert, yet Defendant waited until March

13, 2006 to bring this issue to the Court’s attention. The Court appreciates that Defendant was

engaged in meet and confer efforts, but the three-week delay when pretrial deadlines were rapidly

approaching was unreasonable. Nevertheless, the Court grants the motion to shorten time. 

Case 4:04-cv-04011-PJH Document 152 Filed 03/14/06 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

Plaintiff shall file an opposition no later than March 20, 2006 at noon. Defendant shall file a

reply no later than March 21, 2006 at noon. The Court does not intend to hold a hearing, but will

notify the parties if a hearing is necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04011-PJH Document 152 Filed 03/14/06 Page 2 of 2