Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02698/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02698-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

JANE DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE STREET PHOTO & VIDEO, 

LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02698-MEJ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINE BY 

TWENTY (20) MINUTES

Dkt. No. 35

Plaintiff filed three documents in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration 

approximately fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes after the midnight-deadline for doing so. See

Opp’n, Dkt. No. 32 (HTML Receipt shows filing on 10/28/16 at 0:15 a.m.); Doe Decl., Dkt. No. 

33 (HTML Receipt shows filing on 10/28/16 at 0:17 a.m.); Burgoyne Decl., Dkt. No. 34 (HTML 

Receipt shows filing on 10/28/16 at 0:19 a.m.). Plaintiff’s Counsel missed the deadline because of 

work- and family-related issues. See Burgoyne Decl. re: Extension ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 36. When 

counsel for Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with counsel for Defendant to obtain a 

stipulation and order to extend the time for filing the documents by thirty minutes, counsel for 

Defendant declined to so stipulate. Id. ¶ 3 & Ex. A (email with Defendant’s counsel’s response: 

“No, I will not so stipulate to plaintiff’s untimely filing of her Opposition to my client’s motion 

and the supporting Declarations”). Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3, Plaintiff therefore filed a motion to 

extend her deadline by twenty (20) minutes. See Mot., Dkt. No. 35. Plaintiff filed that motion on 

November 3, 2016. See id.

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3, Defendant was required to oppose the request “no later than 4 

days after receiving the motion.” See N.D. Civ. L.R. 6-3(b). Defendant accordingly was required 

to oppose the request by November 7, 2016. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). Defendant did not 

Case 3:16-cv-02698-TSH Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 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

oppose the request.1 

Accordingly, based on the declaration filed by Plaintiff’s counsel in connection with the 

motion to extend Plaintiff’s deadline by twenty (20) minutes, and the lack to Defendant of any 

prejudice caused by the twenty (20) minute delay, the Court finds good cause for extending the 

deadline by twenty (20) minutes. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1 A lack of basic courtesy caused Plaintiff’s counsel to incur unnecessary time and expense to file 

a motion regarding a request that was, in the end, unopposed; it also wasted the Court’s time and 

resources.

Case 3:16-cv-02698-TSH Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 2