Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05810/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05810-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

 While Local Rule 7-11 generally requires that a copy of a motion for administrative relief be

delivered to the other parties on the same day that the motion is filed, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s

address in this matter, both in her pleadings and on the proofs of service filed by the parties, is a post

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA A. McCOLM,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY,

ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

______________________________________/

Case No. C-02-5810 PJH (JCS)

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION

TO ALL MOTIONS FILED ON

FEBRUARY 28, 2007 [Docket No. 160]

The Court has received Plaintiff’s Objection to All Motions Filed on February 28, 2007

Pursuant (the “Objection”) [Docket No. 160]. The Objection challenges the order of February 14,

2007, in which the district judge in this matter set various deadlines regarding motions to compel. 

The Objection seeks to strike the discovery motions filed on February 28, 2007, (the “Discovery

Motions”) and noticed for hearing before the undersigned magistrate judge on April 20, 2007. 

The Objection seeks to strike all of the discovery motions on the basis that the San Francisco

Housing Authority Defendants (“Defendants”) failed to comply with the Local Rules of this court. 

The chronology is as follows: on February 13, 2007, Defendants delivered to the Court a Motion for

Administrative Relief Requesting Extension of Deadline to File Motions to Compel, along with a

proposed Order. A proof of service in the Court’s file, as well as the copy of the Motion for

Administrative Relief, indicates that Plaintiff was served by U.S. Mail with both of these documents

on February 13, 2007.1

 The Motion for Administrative Relief was filed in the Clerk’s Office on the

Case 4:02-cv-05810-PJH Document 173 Filed 03/19/07 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

office box in San Francisco. 

2

 While Local Rule 7-11 provides that motions for administrative relief are deemed submitted

after the time for opposition has run (three days after the motion was filed), nothing in Rule 7-11 forbids

the Court from ruling on a motion for administrative relief without the necessity of an opposition.

2

following day, February 14, 2007. After reviewing the file in the case, and the Motion for

Administrative Relief, the district judge set a reasonable discovery schedule for motions to compel

in an order dated February 14, 2007.2

 The Motion for Administrative Relief sought only an

extension of time to file a motion to compel because, inter alia, Defendants only received a copy of

transcripts of Plaintiff’s two days of deposition on February 6, 2007, a mere three days before the

original deadline for motions to compel.

Good cause appearing, to the extent that the Objection seeks to strike the Discovery Motions,

the Objection is OVERRULED, and that Motion to Strike is DENIED. The district judge in this

matter set a reasonable schedule for discovery motions, and Defendants have complied with that

schedule. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2007

___________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-05810-PJH Document 173 Filed 03/19/07 Page 2 of 2