UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 21, 2008
JACKIE V. LOTT, PLAINTIFF(S),
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT(S).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Judge
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
For the Northern District of California For the Northern District of California For the Northern District of California United States District Court United States District Court United States District Court Before the court is plaintiff's administrative motion to extend, for a third time, the discovery deadlines set in this case. The November 2, 2007 case management order originally scheduled discovery deadlines as follows: fact discovery: May 2, 2008 expert disclosures: May 1, 2008/June 4, 2008 expert discovery: August 15, 2008 Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, on April 7, 2008, these dates were continued as follows: fact discovery: June 30, 2008 expert disclosures: June 30, 2008/July 30, 2008 expert discovery: September 30, 2008 Pursuant to a second stipulation of the parties, on May 30, 2008, the court approved another continuance of these dates as follows: fact discovery: July 30, 2008 expert disclosures: July 30, 2008 expert discovery: July 30, 2008 (no change for this date) Now plaintiff requests an additional extension as follows: fact discovery: August 29, 2008 expert disclosures: September 30, 2008 expert discovery: October 31, 2008 Given the first two extensions, the court finds plaintiff's showing of good cause less than compelling. However, given the absence of any objection by defendant, the court approves the request and advises the parties that 1) the dispositive motions hearing deadline of September 24, 2008 will not be extended notwithstanding the extension of the expert discovery deadlines, and 2) no further continuances of other pretrial dates will be approved.
Additionally, he court hereby STRIKES the supplemental response brief filed by defendant because such filing is not permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-11, and because it improperly incorporates by reference a brief filed in another proceeding, thereby permitting defendant to substantially expand on the page limits provided for informal requests for administrative relief. To the extent that defendant believes a motion is required to put the information therein before the court, defendant shall file a motion that complies with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.