Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04679/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04679-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-04679-LHK

Case No. 09-CR-00586-LHK-1 

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

REYNALDO PEDREGON,

Defendant-Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Respondent.

Case No. 14-CV-04679-LHK1

Case No. 09-CR-00586-LHK-1 

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION 

TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME

ECF No. 21

On April 15, 2016, the Court granted Respondent’s motion for extension of time to file a 

response to Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. ECF No. 19. On April 27, 2016, Petitioner 

filed an objection to Respondent’s motion for extension of time. ECF No 21. Petitioner’s 

objection fails to comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3, which states that “a party who opposes a 

motion to enlarge or shorten time must file an opposition not to exceed 5 pages, accompanied by a 

declaration setting forth the basis for opposition, no later than 4 days after receiving the motion.” 

Civil L.R. 6-3(b). Petitioner’s objection was filed more than 4 days after Respondent’s motion for 

extension of time, and Petitioner’s objection, which is seven pages in length, exceeds the limits set 

 

1 All docket citations in this Order refer to Case No. 14-CV-04679-LHK unless otherwise noted. 

Case 5:14-cv-04679-LHK Document 23 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 14-CV-04679-LHK

Case No. 09-CR-00586-LHK-1 

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

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

forth in Civil Local Rule 6-3(b). 

In addition to Petitioner’s failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3, the Court also finds 

Petitioner’s objection unavailing on the merits. Petitioner filed his motion on October 20, 2014. 

ECF No. 1. The case was originally assigned to U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman. On December 

2, 2014, Judge Freeman pointed out that Petitioner had “failed to file a memorandum setting forth 

the facts under which he believes he is entitled to relief,” and that Petitioner needed to do so 

before this action could move forward. ECF No. 3 at 1. Judge Freeman further stated that “[s]uch 

a motion must be filed with this Court no later than December 23, 2014.” Id. 

Petitioner filed an untimely 249 page memorandum on December 29, 2014. Case No. 09-

CR-00586-LHK-1, ECF No. 57. On January 27, 2015, Judge Freeman directed Respondent to 

answer Petitioner’s § 2255 motion. Case No. 09-CR-00586-LHK-1, ECF No. 58. Judge Freeman 

recused herself from this action on March 13, 2015, and the case was reassigned to the 

undersigned judge on March 19, 2015. 

On March 30, 2015, Respondent filed a motion for waiver of attorney-client privilege. 

ECF No. 7. Petitioner failed to respond to this motion. Consequently, on May 27, 2015, the Court 

ordered Petitioner to file a statement of opposition or non-opposition by June 26, 2015. ECF No. 

9. After learning that the Clerk’s Office had failed to serve on Petitioner a copy of the Court’s 

May 27, 2015 Order, the Court, on August 12, 2015, continued the deadline for Petitioner to 

respond to September 11, 2015. ECF No. 10. 

On September 8, 2015, Petitioner stated that he agreed to waive his attorney-client 

privilege as to those issues raised in his § 2255 motion. Case No. 09-CR-00586-LHK-1, ECF No. 

65. Accordingly, on October 16, 2015, the Court granted Respondent’s motion for waiver of 

attorney-client privilege. ECF No. 13. Respondent filed a motion for clarification regarding the 

scope of the Court’s order on January 12, 2016, and the Court issued an order responding to this 

waiver on January 20, 2016. ECF Nos. 15 & 16. 

On March 29, 2016, after observing that neither Petitioner nor Respondent had filed 

Case 5:14-cv-04679-LHK Document 23 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 14-CV-04679-LHK

Case No. 09-CR-00586-LHK-1 

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

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

anything in response to the Court’s January 20, 2016 Order, the Court directed Respondent to 

answer Petitioner’s § 2255 motion within 30 days. Petitioner thereafter moved for an extension of 

time, requesting a 60-day extension because (1) Petitioner’s 249 page memorandum would “take a

significant [amount of] time to respond to,” (2) Respondent’s counsel would be in a two-week jury 

trial beginning on May 2, 2016, and (3) Respondent’s counsel would take maternity leave on May 

13, 2016. ECF No. 19 at 2–3. In light of these circumstances, the Court granted Respondent’s 

motion to extend time and ordered Respondent to file an answer by June 27, 2016. A hearing on 

Petitioner’s motion is now set for September 1, 2016. 

The Court acknowledges the need to address Petitioner’s motion in a timely manner, and 

the Court does not intend to grant any future extensions of time in this action. However, the 

record does not support a finding that Respondent’s actions were in bad faith or were used “to gain 

an unfair advantage in these proceedings.” ECF No. 21 at 1. Accordingly, Petitioner’s objection 

is OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04679-LHK Document 23 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 3