Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808-35/pdf.json

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

---

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

KAREN MOE HUMPHREYS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-04-03808 SI (EDL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE BRIEFING

SCHEDULES OF PLAINTIFF’S AUGUST

15 AND 22 MOTIONS AND GRANTING

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND

PROHIBIT FILINGS

On August 15, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for continued enforcement of the Court’s Order

regarding identification of handwriting and authentication of documents and a motion for continued

enforcement of the Court’s Order regarding the Sawyers investigation document production. These

motions are set for hearing on September 19, 2006. On August 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for

continued enforcement of the Court’s order regarding business justification and a motion for

continued enforcement of the Court’s order regarding server paths. These motions are set for

hearing on September 26, 2006. 

On August 23, 2006, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion seeking to consolidate the

briefing schedules for these four motions and to have them heard on September 26, 2006. 

Defendants opposed this motion. 

On August 24, 2006, Defendants filed an administrative motion seeking to continue the

hearing currently scheduled for September 26, 2006 to October 17, 2006, and to continue the

briefing schedule accordingly, because counsel is in trial in Alameda County Superior Court and so

would have difficulty timely opposing all of Plaintiff’s motions. Defendants also seek a court order

prohibiting Plaintiff from filing additional motions while defense counsel is in trial. Plaintiff

opposed this motion. 

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 501 Filed 08/31/06 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 1 Being in trial does not, of course, create an automatic exception from obligations in this

case. 

2

On August 29, 2006, Defendants filed oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions that are scheduled to

be heard on September 19, 2006. That date is also preferable for the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

motions for continued enforcement of the Court’s Order regarding identification of handwriting and

authentication of documents and a motion for continued enforcement of the Court’s Order regarding

the Sawyers investigation document production shall be heard on September 19, 2006. Plaintiff

shall file reply briefs on the regular schedule no later than September 5, 2006. Plaintiff’s

administrative motion to consolidate the briefing schedules of her motions is therefore denied.

Because defense counsel represents that the September 26, 2006 hearing date for the other

two motions filed on August 22, 2006 is a hardship and because that date is also problematic for the

Court, the Court grants in part Defendant’s administrative motion to continue the hearings and

briefing schedules of Plaintiff’s motions that are currently scheduled for hearing on September 26,

2006.1

 In so ruling, the Court relies on counsel’s representation that Defendant is preserving all

potentially relevant information that currently exists, including on its computer system in server

paths and elsewhere. Accordingly, the hearing on Plaintiff’s motions for continued enforcement of

the Court’s order regarding business justification and for continued enforcement of the Court’s order

regarding server paths is scheduled for October 10, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. No later than September 19,

2006, Defendants shall file oppositions to these motions. Plaintiff shall file her replies no later than

September 26, 2006. 

Defendants’ administrative motion seeking an order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing

additional motions while defense counsel is in trial is denied. Defendants have made no showing to

justify this kind of relief. In any event, Plaintiff represented in her papers that she does not plan to

file any more motions until the pending motions are resolved. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 501 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 2