Litvinova
Litvinova v. The City and County of San Francisco
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TATYANA LITVINOVA,
Case No. 18-cv-01494-RS Plaintiff, 11 v.
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
Defendant.
15 KRISTEN SILLOWAY, Case No. 20-cv-7400-RS 16 Plaintiff, 17 v. ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCES
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, Defendant.
21 22 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-3, 7-1, and 40-1, Defendant moved for a trial continuance 23 in both of these related cases, explaining that its lead trial counsel was unavailable for the 24 scheduled dates. See Silloway et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 20-cv-7400 25 (“Silloway”), Dkt. No. 98; Litvinova v. The City and County of San Francisco, No. 18-cv-1494 26 (“Litvinova”), Dkt. No. 136. The Silloway Plaintiffs opposed the motion and countered with their 27 own, explaining, inter alia, that some of the dates proposed by Defendant failed to allow enough time to accommodate what they characterize as “significant delays in fact and expert discovery …