United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Darshelle Randolph, pro se, brings suit against One
Source Temporary Service for employment discrimination and
retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.
See Employment Discrimination Complaint (Doc. #1) filed
December 11, 2017. On March 5, 2018, defendant filed a motion
for summary judgment and provided notice of plaintiff's
obligation to respond under Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., and D.
Kan. Rule 56.1. See Defendant Labor Source, LLC's
Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #13); Notice To
Pro Se Litigant Who Opposes A Motion For Summary
Judgment (Doc. #15). Pursuant to D. Kan. Rule
56.1(d)(2), plaintiff had 21 days or until March 26, 2018 to
respond to the summary judgment motion. Plaintiff did not
file a response by that date.
March 28, 2018, two days after the response was due,
plaintiff filed a Motion For New Hearing And
Extension Of Time To Respond To Motion For Summary
Judgment (Doc. #19). In the motion, plaintiff states as
I LaTreissa Randolph, apologize for missing the date for
defendant's pending motion for summary judgment on March
26, 2018. I am asking the summary Judge, James O' Hara,
if April 3, 2018 would be a good time to see me as the next
court time would be April 5th, 2018, [w]hen I would file my
mediation notice. I also will content, [sic] Kevin D. Case
the defendant lawyer to assure the meeting.
Motion (Doc. #19).
extent plaintiff asks the Court to schedule a meeting or
hearing, she does not state the purpose or need for such
meeting or hearing. Absent such information, the Court
overrules plaintiff's request.
extent plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to
the summary judgment motion, her motion does not comply with
the requirements of D. Kan. Rule 6.1(a). That rule states as
motions for an extension of time to perform an act required
or allowed to be done within a specified time must show:
(1) whether there has been prior consultation with other
parties and the views of other parties;
(2) the date when the act was first due;
(3) if prior extensions have been granted, the number of
extensions granted and the date of expiration of the last
(4) the cause for the requested extension.
Parties must file the motion before the specified time
expires. Absent a showing of excusable neglect, the court
will not grant extensions requested after the specified time
D. Kan. Rule 56.1(a). Plaintiff's motion does not state
(1) whether plaintiff has consulted with defendant and the
views of defendant or (2) the cause for the requested
extension. In addition, plaintiff did not file the motion
before her response time expired ...