Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02558/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02558-3/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY MARES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CCSF,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-02558 JSW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST TO MODIFY THE

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN

THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

On July 8, 2005 Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative,

motion for partial summary adjudication. Defendant initially noticed the motion for a hearing

on August 12, 2005, and thus, Plaintiff initially had until July 22, 2005, just two weeks, to file

an opposition. It was not until July 14, 2005, almost a week later, that the hearing was moved

out. On July 29, 2005, the Court set a briefing schedule giving Plaintiff until August 12, 2005

to file his opposition. Although Plaintiff did not receive the order until July 31 or August 1,

2005, Plaintiff still had ten court days in which to work on and file his opposition. Plaintiff

waited until the afternoon of August 10, 2005, two days before his opposition was due to

request an extension. Moreover, Defendant notes in its opposition to Plaintiff’s request that

Plaintiff already deposed two of the six witnesses who submitted declarations in support of

Defendant’s motion and that Defendant disclosed all of these witnesses during discovery. Given

the above facts, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown good cause to modify the 
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff’s request to modify the

date by which his opposition is due. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE