Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04624/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04624-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WADE ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHIRAZ QADRI, AVENIR RESTAURANT

GROUP, INC. and GREG ST. CLAIRE,

Defendants. /

No. C06-04624 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

[Re: Docket No. 59]

Pro se plaintiff Wade Robertson moves for an order continuing the February 6, 2007

hearing on defendants’ motion for protective order. Defendants oppose the motion. Upon

consideration of the papers filed by the parties, and for the reasons stated below, the motion is

GRANTED.

Defendants acknowledge that they unilaterally selected the February 6, 2007 hearing

date (contrary to this division’s Standing Order Regarding Case Management in Civil Cases),

and this court does not condone the failure to comply with applicable rules and orders. 

However, defendants’ discovery motion apparently was filed and served well in advance of the

noticed hearing; and plaintiff has not convincingly demonstrated why he could not have sought

the requested relief earlier. Moreover, plaintiff’s anticipated discovery motions have yet to be

filed, and the record presented suggests that he has perhaps not been as diligent as he should

have been as to certain discovery issues which he apparently plans to raise before this court.

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 65 Filed 01/31/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Nevertheless, insofar as plaintiff represents that he will file, no later than February 6, 2007,

several discovery motions concerning the same depositions that are at issue in defendants’

motion for protective order, this court believes that it will be more fair and efficient to hear both

sides’ motions at the same time. Although defendants contend that their discovery motion is

purely procedural, the resolution of the parties’ dispute will undoubtedly involve consideration

of factual circumstances surrounding the subject depositions. In any event, this court finds that

defendants will not be seriously prejudiced (if at all) by a continuance. Accordingly, IT IS

ORDERED THAT:

1. The February 6, 2007 hearing on defendants’ discovery motion is VACATED.

2. The hearings on defendants’ motion for protective order and on plaintiff’s

promised discovery motions are set for March 20, 2007, 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2. Briefing

on defendants’ discovery motion is complete. Briefing on plaintiff’s discovery motions shall

proceed in accordance with the court’s Civil Local Rules.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

January 31, 2007

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 65 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

A copy of this order will be mailed to:

Wade Robertson

Post Office Box 20185

Stanford, CA 94309

Pro Se Plaintiff

Patrick C. Kerwin 

Kerwin & Kerwin, LLP

968 Woodside Road

P.O. Box 610148

Redwood City, CA 94061-0148

Counsel for Defendant

Dated: _____________________________

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

1/31/07 /s/

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 65 Filed 01/31/07 Page 3 of 3