Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02299/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02299-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA LYNN RUX, NO. 2:05-cv-2299-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

a Washington corporation; 

and DOES I through XX,

inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On January 19, 2007, counsel for Plaintiff Pamela Lynn Rux

filed a request to continue the February 12, 2007 hearing on

Defendant Starbucks’ Motion for Summary Judgment (filed January

12, 2007) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56(f). 

Plaintiff contends that she needs the deposition of Nancy Beall,

which is currently set for February 9, 2007, in order to

adequately oppose Starbucks’ Motion. Alternatively, Plaintiff

asks that Defendants’ Motion be denied pending Ms. Beall’s

deposition. Starbucks has not opposed Plaintiff’s request.

///

Case 2:05-cv-02299-MCE -EFB Document 37 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 3
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

The Declaration of Victoria M. Ciganda filed in support of

Plaintiff’s request indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel has

attempted to schedule the deposition of Ms. Beall since June of

2006. (Ciganda Decl., ¶ 4). Plaintiff’s papers also detail how

Ms. Beall’s deposition testimony may be crucial in opposing

Starbuck’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Plaintiff’s Moving

Papers, 8:4-23).

Rule 56(f) provides for continuance of a summary judgment

motion under such circumstances, stating in pertinent part as

follows:

(f) When Affidavits are Unavailable. Should it appear from

the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party

cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts

essential to justify the party’s opposition, the court may

refuse the application for judgment or may order a

continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or

depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make

such other order as is just.

Rule 56(f) confers the court with discretion to order that

additional discovery be completed before to summary judgment, or

to “make such order as it just” to “protect parties from a

premature grant of summary judgment.” Weinberg v. Whatcom

County, 241 F.3d 746, 750 (9th Cir. 2001). “A district court

should continue a summary judgment upon a good faith showing by

affidavit that the continuance is needed to obtain facts

essential to preclude summary judgment.” Id. at 750, citing Cal.

Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998).

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02299-MCE -EFB Document 37 Filed 01/29/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Because Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Beall’s deposition is

crucial in obtaining facts necessary to show that Starbucks

engaged in discriminatory conduct towards Plaintiff, because

Plaintiff has been attempting to obtain Ms. Beall’s deposition

for many months, and because Starbucks agreed to produce Ms.

Beall for deposition prior to expiration of the discovery cutoff

in this matter on January 15, 2007, the Court finds that

Plaintiff has shown good cause for continuing the hearing on

Starbucks’ Motion for Summary Judgment, particularly given

Starbucks’ apparent non-opposition to Plaintiff’s request. The

hearing on said Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby continued

to April 2, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The deadlines for opposition and

reply, if any, shall be calculated in advance of that continued

date in accordance with Local Rule 78-230(c). The discovery

cutoff in this matter is extended for the sole purpose of

obtaining Nancy Beall’s deposition on February 9, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02299-MCE -EFB Document 37 Filed 01/29/07 Page 3 of 3