Opinion
Case No. 2:10-CV-00376-KJM-KJN
08-29-2011
CHERE D. WARD, an individual, Plaintiff, v. TOM VILSACK, SECRETARY DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant.
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULE (Doc. #25)
AND CONTINUE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. #22)
The Stipulation to Modify Pretrial Schedule (Dkt. No. 25) and Continue Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 22) filed herein on August 25, 2011 (Dkt. No. 26), is hereby APPROVED, as follows:
The deadlines set forth in the July 22, 2011 "Order Approving Stipulation to Modify December 1, 2010 Pretrial Scheduling Order and Continue Date for Hearing of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" (Dkt. No. 25), shall be modified (extended) as follows:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Law and ¦ ¦ ¦Motion ¦October 6, 2011 (from September 15, 2011) ¦ ¦cut-off: ¦ ¦ +------------+----------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Final ¦January 18, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. (from December 14, 2011), before¦ ¦Pretrial ¦U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, in Courtroom 3; a joint¦ ¦Conference: ¦pretrial statement is due by January 4, 2012. ¦ +------------+----------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Trial: ¦April 2, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. (from March 5, 2012), before U.S. ¦ ¦ ¦District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, in Courtroom 3 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
It is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 22) currently scheduled for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on September 15, 2011, shall be continued to October 6, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 25 of the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California.
2. Plaintiff shall file and serve her opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment by no later than September 15, 2011.
3. Defendant shall file and serve its reply brief by no later than September 29, 2011, in accordance with Local Rule 230(d).
4. As this is the second extension the court has granted with respect to the summary judgment briefing and trial dates in this action, the court is not inclined to grant further extensions absent a significant showing of good cause. Further, the court notes that the requested extension was filed on August 25, 2011, the very same day of plaintiff's deadline to file her opposition to the pending summary judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 25.) Eastern District Local Rule 144(d) provides that "Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent. Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor." Accordingly, future requests for extensions that are filed on the day of the deadline at issue may be summarily denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE