Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barrientos v. O' Lakes

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 17, 2010

CYNTHIA BARRIENTOS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LAND O' LAKES, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Document 19)

Plaintiff Cynthia Barrientos ("Plaintiff") filed the instant employment discrimination action in Tulare County Superior Court on April 27, 2009. Defendant Land O' Lakes ("Defendant") removed the action to this Court on July 29, 2009, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order issued on October 16, 2009, the non-expert discovery deadline was February 15, 2010.

On February 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for an extension of time to respond to discovery. Plaintiff also requested that the dates in the Scheduling Order be extended.

Plaintiff's request is based on counsel's belief that there has been an irremediable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Counsel has provided Plaintiff with a Substitution of Attorney form. If the form is not returned, counsel plans on filing a motion to withdraw.

Plaintiff states that responses to Defendant's request for production of documents and requests for answers to interrogatories "are due." Counsel explains, however, that responses have not been provided because of the "interaction between plaintiff and her attorney on February 15, 2010." Ex Parte Motion, at 3.

The Court GRANTS an additional twenty (20) days to provide responses to Defendant's discovery. It appears as though counsel is withholding responses because he is uncomfortable doing so given the relationship with his client. Counsel is reminded, however, that this is not sufficient justification for refusing to respond to discovery.

Insofar as Plaintiff requests that the dates set forth in the Scheduling Order be extended, her request is DENIED. It is not clear at this time whether counsel will be relieved and there will be sufficient time to modify dates if, and when, necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100217

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.