Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04433/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04433-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSE CAMP and BEVERLY MARTINETS,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 THE CULINARY INSTITUTE OF

AMERICA, and DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04433 WHA

SECOND ORDER DENYING

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 

OF NON-EXPERT 

DISCOVERY CUT-OFF

On July 17, 2006, the Court denied the parties’ joint request for a 39-day extension to

the non-expert discovery cut-off, finding that the parties failed to establish good cause. Days

later, the parties have renewed their request for an extension.

The case management order in this action set the non-expert discovery cut-off for

September 22, 2006. The parties apparently have important depositions that they still intend to

take. The parties acknowledge, however, that the desired deponents will be available in late

August or early September — before the discovery cut-off. The parties now explain that the

rationale for an extension is to allow for ‘follow-up’ written discovery and for related ‘followup’ discovery motions. 

This action was removed to federal court on November 1, 2005. The initial complaint

was filed in state court on September 15, 2005. Given that one-year will have elapsed by the

Case 3:05-cv-04433-WHA Document 28 Filed 07/20/06 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

2

date of the discovery cut-off, the purported justification of a need to propound further written

discovery does not constitute good cause for an extension.

Nevertheless, this order is without prejudice to the parties to seek an extension of the

deadline from the Court, closer to the September 22 cut-off and after the completion of the

necessary depositions, on a showing of a particularized need for further discovery. Until that

time, the parties’ request for an extension is still DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04433-WHA Document 28 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 2