Opinion
No. C 09-0301 RS
10-25-2011
RON E. REYNOLDS, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE SCHEDULING
Defendants seek an extension of the deadline for hearing dispositive motions, in light of lead counsel's impending family leave. Plaintiff is correct that defendant's motion is not properly characterized as one brought under Civil Local Rule 7-11. It is not the case, however, that defendants were required to bring the motion on 35 days notice, absent a separate application for an order shortening time. Rather, because the relief defendants seek is only an enlargement of the time in which they must file any dispositive motions, the motion could properly be brought as a standalone motion under Civil Local 6-3. The deadline for oppositions to be filed is identical under Rules 6-3 and 7-11, so plaintiff was not prejudiced by the mislabeling of the motion.
As plaintiff points out, however, good cause for the requested extension of time must still be shown. Defendants have not established that an extension of the dispositive motion hearing deadline to April of 2012 is appropriate, although some relief is warranted. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the deadline for hearing any dispositive motions is extended to March 8, 2012, with the motions to be filed at least 35 days in advance. To minimize the potential of any prejudice to plaintiff, dispositive motions shall not be set for hearing any earlier than March 1, 2012, and regardless of when such motions may be actually filed, the briefing schedule shall be calculated from the noticed hearing date, with opposition due 21 days in advance, and reply due 14 days in advance. No other dates or deadlines will be altered at this juncture, and the parties should make every effort to complete all pending depositions and any other fact discovery as presently scheduled. IT IS SO ORDERED.
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE