Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00981/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00981-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gateway Unified School District
Defendant
Kendall Lynn
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENDALL LYNN,

Plaintiff,

v.

GATEWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:10-CV-00981 JAM-CMK

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL 

CONFERENCE AND TRIAL

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kendall Lynn’s 

(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Continue Pretrial Conference and Trial

(Doc. #90). Defendant Gateway Unified School District 

(“Defendant”) opposes the motion.

1

///

///

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision 

without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

Case 2:10-cv-00981-JAM-CMK Document 94 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 5
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

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is the former Director of Information Technology for 

Defendant. Plaintiff, an African-American, was dismissed from his 

position on August 19, 2009. After his termination, on August 26 

or August 27, 2009, Plaintiff, without permission, downloaded 

39,312 emails from Defendant’s server – the server contained the 

emails of every employee in the entire school district for at least 

four months. Of those 39,312 emails, 115 were relevant to

Plaintiff’s case. On October 12, 2009, Plaintiff forwarded some of 

the emails to his attorney, Robert E. Thurbon (“Thurbon”). Thurbon 

took possession of the electronic emails and had them loaded onto 

his office computer in June 2010; Thurbon used those emails for 

Plaintiff’s case and for litigation concerning Judy Thulin 

(“Thulin”), another client.

This matter proceeded through discovery with an initial trial 

set for March 2012. On December 7, 2011, this Court held a 

hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary 

Judgment. In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argued that 

Plaintiff and Thurbon should be sanctioned by a dismissal for 

using the ill-gotten emails. The Court denied the Motion to 

Dismiss, but it disqualified Thurbon and it forbade Plaintiff from 

introducing any evidence about the contents of the emails (Doc. 

#64) (“December 16 Order”). The Court denied Defendant’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment. Id. Plaintiff immediately sought 

substitution of counsel and requested a continuance of the March 

trial date. The Court granted the substitution of counsel (Doc. 

#65) and reset the final pretrial conference for June 1, 2012 and 

the trial for July 9, 2012 (Doc. #69). 

Case 2:10-cv-00981-JAM-CMK Document 94 Filed 05/23/12 Page 2 of 5
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

Both Thurbon and Plaintiff appealed the December 16 Order to 

the Ninth Circuit (Docs. ##70 and 72, respectively). Subsequent 

to the Court granting Plaintiff’s request for a continuance, the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Appeal but allowed Thurbon’s appeal to proceed 

(Docs. ###82 and 89, respectively).

II. OPINION

A. Legal Standard

1. Motion for a Continuance

The decision to grant or deny a request for a continuance lies 

within the discretion of the trial court. Ungar v. Sarafite, 

376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964). Upon review of a trial court’s ruling on 

a request for a continuance, the Ninth Circuit has adopted a fourpronged test, commonly referred to as the Flynt factors. United 

States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1985). The four-pronged 

test is applied to both criminal and civil cases. United States v. 

21 Acres of Land, 791 F.2d 666 (9th Cir. 1985). The Flynt factors, 

to be equally weighed, are: diligence, usefulness, inconvenience, 

and prejudice. Id. at 671.

B. Claims for Relief

Plaintiff argues that the Court should continue the trial 

until after the Ninth Circuit decides Thurbon’s appeal because of 

judicial economy and, if the Ninth Circuit overturns this Court’s 

order after a trial, Plaintiff would be denied his counsel of 

choice. Defendant counters that Plaintiff has no right to his 

counsel of choice, Plaintiff’s current counsel, Mr. Shumacher, does 

not claim he is unprepared to proceed, and that Defendant will 

suffer prejudice if the trial is continued again because with time 

Case 2:10-cv-00981-JAM-CMK Document 94 Filed 05/23/12 Page 3 of 5
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

4

memories fade and witnesses become unavailable.

The Court finds good cause for a continuance. If the Ninth 

Circuit overturns this Court’s order disqualifying Thurbon, 

Plaintiff should be able to proceed with his counsel of choice. 

This is significant to Plaintiff because Thurbon developed the case 

and created the trial strategy. Additionally, the Court finds 

Defendant’s argument that it will be prejudiced by the delay 

unavailing. During the December 7, 2011 hearing, the Court 

explicitly asked Defendant’s counsel if he was prepared to accept a 

delay upwards of a year in order to bring the Motion to Disqualify. 

See Ex. B to Decl. of Matthew C. Shumacher in Support of Pl.’s 

Reply Br. (Doc. #93). Counsel for the Defendant answered in the 

affirmative. Id. Furthermore, the potential unavailability of 

witnesses is not a compelling argument. Discovery has closed so

testimony has been preserved by deposition for any witnesses who 

might become unavailable while the trial is continued. See

Fed. R. Ev. 804(b)(1)(A). 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has been diligent 

in substituting new counsel and seeking a continuance when his 

prior counsel was disqualified; this continuance is useful because 

it will allow the Ninth Circuit to consider Thurbon’s appeal, which 

might allow Plaintiff to try his case with his counsel of choice; 

the inconvenience of granting the continuance is minimal; and while 

this issue is significant to Plaintiff, the prejudice against the 

Defendant is slight. For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Pretrial Conference and Trial.

Case 2:10-cv-00981-JAM-CMK Document 94 Filed 05/23/12 Page 4 of 5
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

5

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above,

Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Pretrial Conference and Trial 

is GRANTED. The current pretrial conference and trial dates are 

vacated. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report on 

November 26, 2012 or within five (5) days after the Ninth Circuit 

issues its opinion, whichever occurs first. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2012

Case 2:10-cv-00981-JAM-CMK Document 94 Filed 05/23/12 Page 5 of 5