Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04205/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04205-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

Case No. C 03-4205 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL ETC.

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 11/3/05**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CARON RAKICH,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

EMC CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 03-4205 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE

MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL

AND RELATED DATES

[Doc. No. 108]

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to continue the trial date and related dates,

and Defendants’ opposition thereto, the Court concludes as follows:

Plaintiff’s motion is based in part upon her contention that she needs additional discovery

to oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which is set for hearing on December 9,

2005. This portion of Plaintiff’s motion is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). A

motion for continuance under Rule 56(f) must be supported by affidavits setting forth the

particular facts expected to be discovered and how those facts would preclude summary

judgment. Brae Transportation, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir.

1986). These requirements are not satisfied by references to a need for discovery contained in

memoranda or declarations. State of California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998);

Brae, 790 F.2d at 1443. The movant additionally must show that he or she has been diligent in
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

Case No. C 03-4205 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL ETC.

(JFLC2)

conducting discovery. Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 921 (9th Cir.1996);

Brae, 790 F.2d at 1443. Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 56(f) is a proper ground

for denying the motion for continuance and proceeding with the motion for summary judgment. 

Campbell, 138 F.3d at 779; Brae, 790 F.2d at 1443. Plaintiff has not set forth with particularity

what facts she expects to discover and has not explained why she could not have taken the

discovery at issue earlier. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion as to this ground

without prejudice to a renewed Rule 56(f) motion in conjunction with her substantive opposition

to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s motion also is based in part upon her assertion that she wishes to intervene in a

pre-certification class action pending in Illinois. It is entirely unclear whether or how Plaintiff’s

wish to intervene in the Illinois action impacts this action. Accordingly, the Court will deny

Plaintiff’s motion as to this ground.

Finally, Plaintiff’s motion is based in part upon her counsel’s representation that he

cannot go to trial in the instant action as scheduled on January 6, 2006 because of a conflicting

trial in the San Mateo Superior Court. Based upon the Court’s preliminary review of

Defendants’ motion, it appears that the motion may dispose of some or all of Plaintiff’s claims,

and thus may significantly lessen the trial time and trial preparation in the instant action. 

Consequently, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion as to this ground without prejudice to a

renewed motion for continuance of trial once the Court has ruled on Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 3, 2005

/s/ electronic signature authorized 

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge
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

Case No. C 03-4205 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL ETC.

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Kurt Bockes kbockes@littler.com, jwong@littler.com

Margaret Hart Edwards MHEdwards@littler.com, PPrill@littler.com

Alden Knisbacher aknisbacher@ yahoo.com,