Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05911/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05911-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

AUTUMN TURNAGE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF RICHMOND, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 13-cv-05911-TEH 

ORDER RE: STIPULATION ON 

REVISED BRIEFING AND 

HEARING SCHEDULE 

 

On January 26, 2015, the parties to this action filed a joint stipulation asking the 

Court to reset the hearing date and briefing schedule on Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. (Docket No. 33). Importantly, this schedule proposes a hearing date that is 

only one week after the proposed reply deadline. This request is unacceptable. 

As a preliminary matter, this stipulation is untimely under the Court’s Civil 

Standing Order, which requires in relevant part, “Parties seeking to enlarge a filing 

deadline . . . must file a stipulation and proposed order . . . at least five days prior to the 

deadline . . . .” Standing Order ¶ 3. Because Plaintiff’s opposition is due on January 30, 

this request should have been filed by January 25. However, the Court will excuse this 

oversight and consider the parties’ proposal. 

The structure of the Civil Local Rules for the Northern District of California 

provides a briefing and hearing schedule that allows the Court, at minimum, two weeks to 

review the completed papers before a matter is heard at oral argument. This structure is 

not arbitrary; it provides the Court sufficient time to properly consider the written 

arguments presented on often highly complex matters of law. Despite counsel’s trial 

obligations, the stipulation’s proposed schedule sacrifices the necessary preparation of the 

Court for the convenience of the parties. 

Case 3:13-cv-05911-TEH Document 34 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

The Court therefore GRANTS the proposed briefing schedule, but DENIES the 

proposed hearing date. Accordingly, the opposition is due March 9, 2015, and the reply is 

due March 16, 2015. The hearing currently set for February 23, 2015, is VACATED. 

The parties are FURTHER ORDERED to meet and confer, agree upon a date 

certain and in accordance with the Court’s calendar, and provide the Court with an 

acceptable hearing date, which must be at least two weeks after the March 16 reply 

deadline. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/27/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:13-cv-05911-TEH Document 34 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 2