Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06129/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06129-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN ROWE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAPA VALLEY COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:17-cv-06129-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING 2/20/19 JOINT 

LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 45

On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff Robin Rowe filed an administrative motion to extend the 

deadline to file a joint letter, which was granted over Defendant Napa Valley Community College 

District’s objection. In the Court’s order, the parties were directed to “meet and confer pursuant to 

the undersigned's standing order prior to filing the joint letter, and [were] directed to review the 

Northern District Guidelines for Professional Conduct sections 3(e) (scheduling), 4 

(continuances), and 9(e) (depositions).” The latter part of this directive does not appear to have 

been followed, because the parties filed a joint letter on February 20, 2019 on the same issue. 

(Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 45.)

People, including attorneys, fall ill despite looming case deadlines, and parties are 

expected to meet and confer in good faith to resolve any resulting scheduling issues without court 

intervention. While the Court is aware that the last day to hear dispositive motions is March 21, 

2019, the undersigned will permit Plaintiff to take the previously-noticed depositions1after the 

discovery cut-off.

Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the scheduling of the 

 

1 The Court notes that the depositions were originally noticed prior to the discovery cut-off.

Case 4:17-cv-06129-KAW Document 46 Filed 02/22/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

depositions of Dr. Weddington, Karen Smith, Brandon Tofanelli, and the Rule 30(b)(6) designees. 

(See Joint Letter at 1: 7-9.) If the witness testimony is necessary to oppose the motion for 

summary judgment, Plaintiff may file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), 

although the Court hopes that the parties will meet and confer regarding a reasonable briefing 

schedule to obviate unnecessary motion practice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-06129-KAW Document 46 Filed 02/22/19 Page 2 of 2