Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03175/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03175-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YUN-GUI CAI, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

 FISHI CAFÉ, INC, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. 05-03175 EDL

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SHORTEN

TIME AND SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

 On August 14, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to shorten time to hear his motion to compel

so that Plaintiff can use the information sought in his motion to compel in his opposition to

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment which is due on August 21, 2007. Defendant does not

oppose the request to shorten time, and has filed a cross-motion to compel. 

There is no good cause to hear these motions prior to August 21, 2007. If Plaintiff believes

that he needs additional discovery before filing its opposition to certain portions of Defendants’

summary judgment motion, the proper approach is to utilize the procedure in Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56(f). See California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that the

party seeking relief under Rule 56(f) “must show (1) that they have set forth in affidavit form the

specific facts that they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts sought exist, and (3)

that these sought-after facts are ‘essential’ to resist the summary judgment motion.”). However, any

portions of the motion for summary judgment that Plaintiff can oppose without additional discovery

should be addressed on the existing briefing schedule. 

The Court will hear Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Defendants’ Cross-Motion to

Compel on September 4, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. Defendants have already filed an opposition to

Plaintiff’s motion in which they assert that the motion is moot because the documents sought have

already been produced. If Plaintiff decides to proceed with his motion, he shall explain in the reply

Case 3:05-cv-03175-EDL Document 80 Filed 08/20/07 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

why he believes the motion is not moot. Plaintiff’s reply shall be filed no later than August 23,

2007. Also by August 23, 2007, Plaintiff shall file an opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion to

Compel. Defendant may file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition no later than August 28, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03175-EDL Document 80 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 2