Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06199/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06199-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

OLIVIA TAMAYO, )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

v. )

)

HARRIS FARMS, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

)

____________________________________)

CIV F 02-6199 AWI LJO

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S

EX PARTE APPLICATION

FOR AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN

DAYS IN WHICH TO FILE A

RULE 62(c) MOTION

On October 17, 2005, Defendant filed an ex parte application for an additional seven days

in which to file its Rule 62(c) motion. Defendant requests an additional seven days because of

the court reporter’s schedule. Defendant offers to have its time to file a reply cut so that the

November 21, 2005, hearing date may be kept. Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to Defendant’s

request. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant should have requested transcripts sooner, that any

additional information from the transcripts would not be relevant to Defendant’s Rule 62(c)

motion, and that Plaintiffs would be harmed if the extension was granted as they would only have

one week, instead of two, in which to respond to Defendant’s motion.

Irrespective of the validity or invalidity of Plaintiffs’s additional arguments, Plaintiffs

should not have their time to respond to Defendant’s motion cut. This harm, however, can be

Case 1:02-cv-06199-AWI-DLB Document 310 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 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 2

avoided by shortening Defendant’s time to file a reply, which Defendant agreed to do in its ex

parte application.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant may file a Rule 62(c) motion on or by 4:00 p.m., October 31, 2005;

2. Any opposition to Defendant’s motion may be filed on or by 4:00 p.m., November

14, 2005; and

4. Any reply may be filed on or by 12:00 p.m. (Noon), November 17, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06199-AWI-DLB Document 310 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 2