Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03530/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03530-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:688 Jones 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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACKIE V. LOTT,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 07-3530 PJH

v. ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff’s administrative motion to extend, for a third time, the

discovery deadlines set in this case. The November 2, 2007 case management order

originally scheduled discovery deadlines as follows:

fact discovery: May 2, 2008

expert disclosures: May 1, 2008/June 4, 2008

expert discovery: August 15, 2008

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, on April 7, 2008, these dates were continued as

follows:

fact discovery: June 30, 2008

expert disclosures: June 30, 2008/July 30, 2008

expert discovery: September 30, 2008

Pursuant to a second stipulation of the parties, on May 30, 2008, the court approved

another continuance of these dates as follows:

fact discovery: July 30, 2008

expert disclosures: July 30, 2008

expert discovery: July 30, 2008 (no change for this date)

Now plaintiff requests an additional extension as follows:

fact discovery: August 29, 2008

expert disclosures: September 30, 2008

expert discovery: October 31, 2008

Case 4:07-cv-03530-PJH Document 51 Filed 07/21/08 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

Given the first two extensions, the court finds plaintiff’s showing of good cause less

than compelling. However, given the absence of any objection by defendant, the court

approves the request and advises the parties that 1) the dispositive motions hearing

deadline of September 24, 2008 will not be extended notwithstanding the extension of the

expert discovery deadlines, and 2) no further continuances of other pretrial dates will be

approved.

Additionally, he court hereby STRIKES the supplemental response brief filed by

defendant because such filing is not permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-11, and because it

improperly incorporates by reference a brief filed in another proceeding, thereby permitting

defendant to substantially expand on the page limits provided for informal requests for

administrative relief. To the extent that defendant believes a motion is required to put the

information therein before the court, defendant shall file a motion that complies with the

Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03530-PJH Document 51 Filed 07/21/08 Page 2 of 2