Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00677/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00677-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDMOND TADEFA,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDEX OFFICE & PRINT SERVICES,

INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-0677 EMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN

EXTENSION; AND ORDERING

BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

(Docket No. 47-1)

Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment, which is currently set for hearing on

July 30, 2015. Apparently, Plaintiff (proceeding pro se) served on Defendant – but did not file with

the Court – a document in which he asked for an extension of time (30 days) to respond to the

summary judgment motion. Defendant has filed a limited opposition to the request for an extension. 

More specifically, Defendant states that it does not opposing a brief continuance of the briefing and

hearing schedule so long as the hearing takes place no later than September 3, 2015, and it is given

sufficient time to file a reply brief.

The Court hereby rules as follows. Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED in part. The Court

shall give Plaintiff an extension but not the full 30 days requested. Plaintiff’s opposition to the

summary judgment motion shall be filed and served by August 6, 2015. Defendant’s reply shall be

filed and served by August 13, 2015. The hearing on the summary judgment motion is

CONTINUED from July 30, 2015, to August 27, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

Case 3:14-cv-00677-EMC Document 49 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 2
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

As a final point, the Court takes into account Plaintiff’s statements in his brief that Defendant

has “REFUSE[D] TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM PLAINTIFF[’]S Request for

Production of Documents” and that “Defendant[] may be in contempt of court under the Rules of the

Court while not fully cooperating with plaintiff causing me more stress.” Mot. at 1. It is not clear

whether Plaintiff is, through this brief, also moving to compel Defendant to provide discovery (e.g.,

in order to oppose the summary judgment motion). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court

shall liberally construe the brief as a motion to compel. Defendant shall file a response to the

motion to compel by July 15, 2015. There shall be no reply brief. Absent further order, the Court

shall rule on the discovery dispute based on the papers (i.e., no oral argument). Plaintiff is advised

that he may be given no relief on his motion to compel so that he should not count on obtaining any

discovery in support of his opposition to the summary judgment motion.

This order disposes of Docket No. 47-1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00677-EMC Document 49 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 2