Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02755/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02755-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 - 06cv2755

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENEE HARRIS BRUNELLE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV2755 JLS (CAB)

ORDER SETTING STATUS

CONFERENCE ON

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.

GE CAPITAL INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

GE Capital Information Technology Solutions’s (“defendant”) motion for summary

judgment is currently scheduled for a hearing on Friday, October 26, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. In her

timely filed opposition brief, Renee Harris Brunelle (“plaintiff”) represented that she does not yet

have the transcript from the deposition of Mr. Ryan Ruwe, the person who allegedly terminated

plaintiff’s employment, and has not yet been able to depose Mr. Jose Soto, allegedly plaintiff’s

immediate supervisor. (Doc. No. 29, at 1-2.) Because of counsel’s scheduling conflicts, Mr. Soto

will be unavailable for deposition until next month (November). (Id. at 2.)

Until counsel is able to review the transcript of Mr. Ruwe’s deposition and to depose Mr.

Soto, the Court finds that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is premature. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(f) (authorizing continuance of summary judgment motion for depositions or other

discovery); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986) (describing Rule 56(f) as the

appropriate mechanism for addressing a premature summary judgment motion); Qualls ex rel.

Case 3:06-cv-02755-JLS-CAB Document 30 Filed 10/16/07 Page 1 of 2
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 - 06cv2755

Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (directing district court to grant

Rule 56(f) continuance upon showing of how additional discovery would preclude summary

judgment). Therefore, counsel SHALL APPEAR before the Court on October 26, 2007. On this

date, however, the Court SHALL HOLD a status conference, rather than a hearing on the merits

of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court RESCHEDULES the time of the status

conference to 2:00 p.m.

On or before Friday, October 19, 2007, defendant MAY FILE a reply to plaintiff’s request

for a continuance. At the status conference, the Court SHALL SET a new hearing date for

defendant’s motion for summary judgment, along with a briefing schedule for plaintiff’s

supplemental opposition and defendant’s reply on the merits. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 16, 2007

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02755-JLS-CAB Document 30 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 2