Sernoffsky v. Novak

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SUSAN SERNOFFSKY, et al., Case No. 23-cv-0039-MMA-WVG 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE v. MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY MATT NOVAK, et al., JUDGMENT 14 Defendants. [Doc. No. 29] 17 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See Doc.

18 No. 24. Defendants’ motion is currently set for hearing on September 25, 2023, meaning that Plaintiffs must file their opposition on or before September 11, 2023, see CivLR 7.1.e.2, and Defendants’ reply is due no later than September 18, 2023, see CivLR 7.1.e.3. On September 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to continue the September 25 hearing on Defendants’ motion. See Doc. No. 30. Plaintiffs ask the Court to take the matter off calendar, and therefore vacate the remaining briefing schedule, and reset the briefing and hearing on the matter once Judge Gallo rules on an outstanding discovery dispute. According to Plaintiffs’ counsel, he made two attempts to contact Defendants’ counsel, by email and phone, on the morning of September 11, but did not receive a response. See Doc. No. 30. Later that afternoon, Defendants filed an opposition Plaintiffs’ motion. See Doc. No. 31.

1 As Plaintiffs note, Defendants filed an “Amended Timeline” one week after filing || their summary judgment motion, which includes additions to Defendants’ account of the events that are the subject of this lawsuit. Compare Doc. No. 24-4 with Doc. No. 28.

4 || Plaintiffs also explain that the outstanding discovery dispute concerns unredacted and || complete documents that Plaintiffs need to properly oppose the motion. In opposition, || Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ request is untimely and unsupported by Federal Rule of || Civil Procedure 56(d). See Doc. No. 31 at 8 While the Court appreciates Defendants’ timing concerns, Plaintiffs do not rely on || Rule 56(d) in support of their request. Rather, the Court has broad discretion to manage 10 own calendar, see, e.g., United States v. Batiste, 868 F.2d 1089, 1091 n.4 (9th Cir. 11 1989), and may extend briefing schedules for good cause under Rule 6 (providing that || courts may extend time “with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request 13 made, before the original time or its extension expires .. .”). Fed R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).

14 || Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion and declaration in support, Defendants’ opposition, |} and the entire docket in this action, the Court finds good cause to vacate the hearing.

16 || Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion, VACATES the September 25, 17 hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and similarly VACATES || the outstanding briefing schedule. The Court DIRECTS the parties to meet and confer || and file a joint status report no later than seven (7) calendar days following Judge || Gallo’s ruling or Defendants’ production of documents resulting from the ruling— || whichever is later. The parties may propose a briefing schedule for the outstanding || deadlines should they come to an agreement. Otherwise, the Court will then reset the 23 matter for hearing and reset the remaining briefing deadlines.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: September 11, 2023 26 BMiidel M —{ hillr 27 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 28 United States District Judge