The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge
This is an action for employment discrimination. Pro se plaintiff, who was formerly employed as a cashier at Shop N Save, alleges that defendants denied her of the right to pray during a scheduled company break and that she was suspended from job training based upon her religious preference. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $3.5 million.
II. Procedural Background
Plaintiff initiated suit on August 7, 2006 and her complaint was filed on August 23, 2006. (Doc. Nos. 1 and 3). On November 27, 2006, this Court held the initial case management conference, at which time the parties agreed and the Court ordered that based upon plaintiff's pro se status, a mediation before United States Magistrate Judge Francis X. Caiazza would be appropriate. (Doc. No. 16). Also, during the initial case management conference, the Court, after consultation with the parties, entered a Case Management Order setting forth certain deadlines, namely that the amended pleadings must be filed by January 26, 2007, that discovery was due by April 2, 2007, and that all summary judgment motions must be filed by May 1, 2007. (Doc. No. 14) The Court further entered a Pretrial Order flowing from the dates set forth in the Case Management Order. The trial of this matter was set for July 2, 2007. (Doc. No. 15).
The mediation of this case before Judge Caiazza occurred on December 12, 2006. However, unfortunately, the case did not settle as a result of the mediation, and the Court was promptly notified of such. (Doc. No. 22). This Court then set a status conference for February 9, 2007. As a result of the status conference, the Court issued a (First) Revised Case Management Order and a (First) Revised Pretrial Order setting new deadlines, namely that Summary Judgment was due by April 10, 2007, and the response was due on April 20, 2007, and the trial date was reset for June 4, 2007. (Doc. Nos. 23 and 24).
Also, as a result of the February 9, 2007 status conference, and upon the Court's prompting, the parties agreed to pursue further mediation before Attorney James Logan at no cost to plaintiff as defendants graciously agreed to pay the entire costs of the mediation. (Doc. No. 25). Also, in an effort to assist pro se plaintiff, this Court successfully endeavored to appoint private counsel to serve in a pro bono capacity for the purpose of assisting plaintiff in the resolution of this case through private mediation. (Doc. No. 27). A mediation session was held on April 4, 2007. However, the case did not settle.
Subsequent to the February 9, 2007 status conference, but prior to the mediation, defendants filed a motion to extend time for case management deadlines (doc. no. 28) and the Court granted such motion and issued a (Second) Revised Case Management Order and a (Second) Revised Pretrial Order again setting new deadlines, namely that discovery would be completed by April 20, 2007, that summary judgment would be due by May 2, 2007, responses would be due by May 15, 2007, and the trial date was reset for June 5, 2007. (Doc. Nos. 29 and 30).
On April 9 and 10, 2007, pro se plaintiff filed several motions. Plaintiff filed a motion to request extension on summary judgment (doc. no. 33), which this Court denied by text order on April 11, 2007, for failure to attached a proposed order and the required discovery dispute certificate. Plaintiff also filed a motion in limine (doc. no. 31) and a motion to amend the complaint (doc. no. 34). The Court ordered defendants to respond to said motions by April 18, 2007 at noon. Also, on April 16, 2007, plaintiff filed a renewed motion to request extension on plaintiff's summary judgment (doc. no. 35) and this Court again ordered defendants to respond to said motion by April 18, 2007 at noon.
Currently pending are plaintiff's motion to request an extension on summary judgment (doc. no. 35), plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (doc. no. 34), and plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude evidence of her prior criminal history and (doc. no. 31) at trial. Defendants have filed responses in opposition to all three instant motions.
A. Motion to Request an Extension on Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 35)
As for plaintiff's motion to request an extension on summary judgment (which was previously denied based upon plaintiff's failure to attach a proposed order and discovery dispute certificate), ...