Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01721/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01721-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTA WATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARFIELD BEACH CVS LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01721-HSG 

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO 

EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. No. 35

This Court originally set a deadline of January 30, 2015 for Defendant Garfield Beach 

CVS to file an “early” motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 16. On January 9, 2015, the 

parties requested an extension of that deadline to April 13, 2015, which the Court granted. Dkt. 

No. 19. Defendant and Plaintiff Roberta Watterson filed separate case management statements on 

March 2 and 3, respectively. Dkt. Nos. 23, 24. In its case management statement, Defendant 

represented that it “intends to file its early motion for summary judgment by April 13, 2015.” 

Dkt. No. 23 at 2. 

At the case management conference held on March 17, 2015, Plaintiff requested that the 

Court extend the early motion for summary judgment briefing again to allow Plaintiff adequate 

time to conduct discovery and take a 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant. See Dkt. No. 24. After 

warning the parties that further extensions would not be considered without good cause, the Court 

extended the filing deadline to May 11, 2015. 

With their stipulation filed on May 4, 2015, the parties now seek a third extension to the 

filing deadline for Defendant’s early motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 35. The parties 

justify their request by pointing to pending discovery disputes, a still-unscheduled 30(b)(6) 

deposition of Defendant, and outstanding discovery responses. Id.

The Court finds that the parties’ have failed to show good cause for their request to extend 

Case 4:14-cv-01721-HSG Document 37 Filed 05/06/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the briefing schedule again. Defendant stated in early March that it was able to comply with the

April 13, 2015 filing deadline; it is thus entirely unclear why the pending discovery disputes 

would now preclude Defendant from complying with the May 11, 2015 filing deadline. 

Furthermore, the parties’ inability to schedule a 30(b)(6) deposition more than four months after 

the original deadline to file the motion is very hard to understand. Likewise, any discovery 

necessary to support or oppose the motion should have been requested long ago, well in advance 

of the filing deadline. 

Accordingly, the stipulation is DENIED. The parties shall comply with the briefing 

schedule previously set by the Court. If the parties claim to have a good faith justification for 

seeking another extension to the filing deadline, they must file a joint statement explaining that

justification in detail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

5/6/2015

Case 4:14-cv-01721-HSG Document 37 Filed 05/06/15 Page 2 of 2