Khan v. SAP Labs, LLC

Background

Muhammad Khan filed this employment discrimination action while serving a prison term for arson. The only remaining claim was a whistleblower-retaliation claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5. Khan alleged that SAP placed him on unpaid leave in retaliation for an internal complaint about his former manager, Sanjay Shirole. SAP moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that Khan had admitted in a sworn statement that his physician, rather than SAP, placed him on leave.

Khan had received several extensions of the deadline to oppose summary judgment. The court had denied his request for a further continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), which can allow additional time for discovery when a party explains why it cannot yet present facts needed to oppose summary judgment. The court also gave him additional time to file an opposition, but later denied further extension requests because Khan had not shown good cause or identified the discovery and documents he needed.

Five Documents Addressed in This Order

1. Petition to enforce the “Archer Stipulation,” for contempt, and for a stay (ECF 147). Khan asked the court to enforce an agreement that he said entitled him to civil assistance while housed at the Santa Clara County Jail. He stated that he had previously sought relief in the Santa Clara County Superior Court and had been denied relief by two judges. The court said it was unfamiliar with the agreement, Khan had not provided a copy, and it did not appear that the court had authority to grant the relief denied by the Superior Court. The court also noted that Khan had not identified what assistance he needed in this case. The petition was DENIED.

2. Ex parte notice of hardship (ECF 148). Khan notified the court that he had been helping his family make arrangements for his father, who was receiving end-of-life treatment. The court expressed sympathy but stated that no further briefing was required or permitted. Any requested relief based on the notice was DENIED.

3. Request for oral argument on SAP’s summary-judgment motion (ECF 149). The court had already determined that SAP’s motion was appropriate for decision without oral argument. Khan did not identify a factual or legal basis for reconsidering that decision. The request for oral argument was DENIED.

4. Reply supporting a previously denied extension request (ECF 150). Khan filed a reply supporting an earlier request for a fourth extension of time. The court stated that the applicable local rule did not provide for a reply, the court had not authorized one, and it had already ruled on the extension request. Khan’s unauthorized reply was STRICKEN.

5. Supplemental declaration supporting the reply (ECF 151). Because the court struck the unauthorized reply, it also struck the supplemental declaration filed in support of that reply. The supplemental declaration was STRICKEN.

Disposition and Scope

The court denied the petition, denied any relief based on the hardship notice, denied oral argument, and struck the unauthorized reply and supplemental declaration. This order addressed those procedural and ancillary requests; it did not decide the merits of SAP’s pending summary-judgment motion. The court stated that its ruling on that motion would be issued simultaneously with this order.