Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01850/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01850-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

C-05-1850 ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASTHMA GULL HASAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CLIFFORD CHANCE, LLP,

Defendant.

________________________________/

No. C 05-1850 CW (JL)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION (Docket # 50)

Introduction 

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Claudia

Wilken) as provided by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The next case

management conference is scheduled for September 8, 2006; pretrial conference will be

January 12, 2007 and jury trial January 22.

Relief Requested

The parties filed the following motions, scheduled by this Court for hearing on July

19: Defendant’s motion for protective order re deposition (#30) Defendant’s motion to

quash subpoena to EEOC (#25) and Plaintiff’s motion to compel 30(b)(6) designation (#41).

Plaintiff filed an ex parte application, styled as an application for change of hearing date,

but in actuality for an order shortening time for hearing these motions. Plaintiff’s application

Case 4:05-cv-01850-CW Document 55 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 3
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

C-05-1850 ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST Page 2 of 3

neither cites a statute, rule or order that permits her ex parte application, nor states good

cause why time should be shortened, all required by Civil Local Rule 7-10. 

Plaintiff claims only that if the time for hearing is not shortened, the parties will be

forced to cancel the mediation in this case, currently scheduled for July 19. Defendant

objects to shortening time, on the basis that it would be burdened and prejudiced by being

required to file its reply and opposition pleadings in the midst of filing its motion for

summary judgment in this case, due on June 30. In addition, it denies that there would be

any need to cancel the mediation to make room in the schedule for the hearing on the

parties’ discovery motions, since there are at least five attorneys working on Plaintiff’s case

and Plaintiff has previously scheduled multiple proceedings for the same date.

The Court is also not convinced by Plaintiff’s contention that the discovery she seeks

is necessary for a meaningful mediation. Defendant states it has already provided the

declaration under oath of the New York partner whose deposition she seeks, on the lone

topics on which she proposed to question him. In addition, the 30(b)(6) deponent whom

Plaintiff objects to and for whom she demands that Defendant name a substitute, is the

sole survivor of Defendant’s now-closed San Francisco office and Plaintiff has already

deposed her for eight hours, making it hard to fathom what more information she might be

able to obtain from this witness and what substitute Defendant might designate. Further,

Plaintiff seeks additional information from the EEOC, which has already informed her that

she has received her own investigative file, the only document it can or will provide. 

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff waited until two weeks before the close of discovery

to begin taking depositions and asks the Court not to punish Defendant for Plaintiff’s lack of

diligence. The parties had extended the cut-off for fact discovery from May 1 to May 31,

2006 to accommodate Plaintiff’s availability for deposition. While the Court does not intend

to assign blame for delays in discovery, it also declines to subject Defendant to

unreasonable deadline pressure in the midst of its summary judgment filing.

/ / /

Case 4:05-cv-01850-CW Document 55 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 3
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

C-05-1850 ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST Page 3 of 3

For all the above reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 26, 2006

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01850-CW Document 55 Filed 06/26/06 Page 3 of 3