Opinion
CASE NO. 1:18-cv-01068-LJO-EPG
04-02-2020
MICHELLE BUDWIG, Plaintiff, v. ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 54)
Before the Court is Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file her opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 54.) The Court will deny the request without prejudice.
This is Plaintiff's third request for an extension of the deadline to file her opposition brief. (See ECF Nos. 39, 51.) The opposition was initially due on March 13, 2020. Late in the evening on March 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed her first request for an extension of time, citing the COVID-19 crisis. (ECF No. 39. ) As the Court has noted previously, when Plaintiff sought this continuance, the opposition was presumably nearly finished given that it was due only two days later. Plaintiff also had Defendant's motion for summary judgment for more than three weeks by that time.
The Court granted in part Plaintiff's first request for an extension of time, extending the deadline for Plaintiff's opposition to 1:00 p.m. on March 17, 2020. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff immediately filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 44), which the Court denied (ECF No. 48). However, the Court subsequently granted additional time, to close of business on March 24, 2020, for Plaintiff to file her opposition brief, citing the uncertainty and quickly changing situation regarding the COVID-19 crisis. (ECF No. 49.)
On March 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed her second request for extension of time, again citing the COVID-19 crisis. (ECF No. 51.) The Court granted the second request, extending the deadline for Plaintiff's opposition to April 6, 2020, as requested by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 53.)
Thus, the Court has already granted Plaintiff an additional 25 days to file her opposition.
On April 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed her third request for an extension of time, again citing the COVID-19 crisis. (ECF No. 54.) In this third request, as in previous requests, Plaintiff's counsel cites to the various guidance and orders that have been issued at the national and state levels, and now the local level, regarding this crisis; various actions that have been taken by different levels of government to slow the spread of the virus; and to the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in California and Fresno. Plaintiff's counsel has also cited to his age as being over 60 years, that he has asthma, and that he has taken measures to protect the health of himself, his family, his staff, and his staff's families.
The Court agrees that the Coronavirus outbreak is a serious health issue and that precautions to slow the spread of the crisis are essential and indeed mandatory. However, at no point in either Plaintiff's previous requests or the present request for an extension of time has Plaintiff's counsel indicated that he has COVID-19 or that he is unable to prepare electronic filings. Indeed, Plaintiff's counsel clearly has the ability to prepare and file briefs with the Court electronically while taking the precautionary measures he has in place, as demonstrated by the multiple requests for extensions of time and the request for reconsideration that he has filed during the period of March 11 through April 1. Plaintiff's counsel does not explain how the COVID-19 crisis, or the precautions he has taken, prevent him from completing and electronically filing an opposition brief that is, as noted previously, presumably almost complete. Nor has Plaintiff's counsel explained how completing and electronically filing the opposition brief increases any risk to his health or the health of others. \\\ \\\
Plaintiff's counsel has not demonstrated that he is unable to meet the April 6, 2020, deadline for filing an opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's third request for an extension of time (ECF No. 54) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2 , 2020
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE