Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05631/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05631-7/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALICE OJEWOLE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, 

INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-05631-JSW 

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND 

REQUIRING OFFER OF PROOF 

Re: Docket No. 44 

On January 22, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment, in which it 

asks the Court to grant summary judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining claims of racial discrimination 

and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Docket No. 44.) That motion is scheduled for a 

hearing on February 26, 2016. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Order, the Court 

CONTINUES the hearing to April 8, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. 

As a general rule, this Court only allows one summary judgment motion per side. At the 

initial case management conference, which was conducted on September 4, 2015, the Court set the 

deadline to hear dispositive motions for August 26, 2016. The Court also set March 24, 2016, as 

the deadline to complete fact discovery. (See Docket No. 41.) 

In her opposition brief, Plaintiff argues that she will be able to provide discovery that will 

support both of her claims, and she contends that the motion should be denied because it is 

premature. (Opp. Br. at 7:24-8:5.) “If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for 

specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer 

considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take 

discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R Civ. P. 56(d). 

Plaintiff’s brief and declaration do not meet the standards of Rule 56(d). However, the 

Case 4:14-cv-05631-JSW Document 50 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

Co

dis

adv

for

sup

mo

sub

res

wit

ant

Aft

per

so.

has

par

Da

 

1

Ord

De

urt also cann

scovery is no

vance of the 

r summary ju

pport for her

otion. 

By no l

bstance of th

spond to Def

tnesses she h

ticipated test

fter the Court

rmit the part

 If the Cour

s to Plaintiff

If the C

rties, vacate 

IT IS S

ated: Februar

 

If that i

der, and if D

efendant to p

not say Plain

ot yet closed,

anticipated 

udgment per

r argument th

later than Feb

he evidence, 

fendant’s mo

has disclosed

timony and w

t has conside

ies to file su

rt grants the 

f’s evidence 

Court determ

the hearing,

SO ORDER

ry 12, 2016 

 

is the case, a

Defendant ha

ermit those 

ntiff could no

, the fact tha

deadline, an

r side, the Co

hat she woul

bruary 22, 2

and the form

otion. By wa

d to Defenda

whether she 

ered Plaintif

upplemental 

parties leave

in its reply.

mines that Pla

 and decide 

RED. 

 

and if the Co

as not yet dep

depositions 

2

ot meet that 

at Defendant

nd the fact th

ourt will give

ld be able to 

2016, Plaintif

m in which it

ay of examp

ant, she must

intends to su

ff’s offer of p

opposition a

e to file such

aintiff’s factu

the motion o

urt permits t

posed these 

to be taken o

standard. T

t filed its mo

hat, in genera

e Plaintiff an

 put forth ev

ff may file a

t would be p

ple only, if, a

t set forth a b

ubmit declar

proof, it will

and reply bri

h briefs, Def

ual proffer is

on the existin

JE

Un

the supplem

witnesses, it

out of time.

Therefore, in

otion for sum

al, the Court

n opportunit

vidence to re

a detailed fac

presented, th

as Plaintiff co

brief proffer

rations docu

l advise the p

iefs, and it w

fendant may 

s not sufficie

ng record. 

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

mental briefs 

t will look fa

n light of the 

mmary judgm

t allows only

ty to provide

espond to De

ctual proffer

at she would

ontends, she

r of the witn

umenting tha

parties whet

will set deadl

raise any ob

ent, it will ad

WHITE 

District Judg

contemplate

avorably on

fact that 

ment well in 

y one motion

e additional 

efendant’s 

r of the 

d present to 

e has 

esses’ 

at testimony.

ther it will 

lines to do 

bjections it 

dvise the 

ge 

ed by this 

a request by

n

1

 

y

Case 4:14-cv-05631-JSW Document 50 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 2