Viswanathan

MEMORANDUM

Attorney Usha Viswanathan appeals pro se 1) the district court’s summary judgment against her on claims she brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 , and the Unruh Act, California Civil Code § 51; 2) the district court’s denial of Ms. Viswana-than’s Rule 56(f) motion for additional discovery; and 3) the district court’s order granting in part Stanford’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees. Viswanathan is a graduate of Stanford Law School (“Stanford”) who sued Stanford, Stanford’s Career Services Office and its director Gloria Pyszka (collectively, “Stanford Defendants”), Cooley Godward LLP (“Cooley”) and Cooley attorney Jeffrey Zimman after she failed to obtain employment with a private law firm. As the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not recite them here.

DISCUSSION

A. Statute of Limitation.

Viswanathan was required to file her administrative charge with the EEOC within 300 days from the date of the al *671 leged discriminatory act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) (2000). A claim for discrimination accrues upon notice of the unlawful act. Aronsen v. Crown Zellerbach, 662 F.2d 584, 593 (9th Cir.1981).…