David Grober v. Mako Products Inc et al

Filing 250

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Stephen G. Larson DENYING plaintiff's EX PARTE APPLICATION for Hearing for District Judge to Decide Related Discovery Motions As Part of Nov 3rd Hearing 237 . (mrgo)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside, CA 92501 CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. Title: CV 04-08604 SGL(OPx) Date: October 28, 2008 DAVID GROBER -v- MAKO PRODUCTS, INC., AIR SEA LAND PRODUCTIONS, INC., CINEVIDEOTECH, INC., SPECTRUM EFFECTS, INC., DOES 1-10 ========================================================================== = PRESENT: HONORABLE STEPHEN G. LARSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Jim Holmes Courtroom Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: None present None Present Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None present ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION PROCEEDINGS: The Court has received and reviewed plaintiff's October 20, 2008 ex parte application to have heard related discovery motions with the November 3, 2008, Markman hearing. The premise underlying the ex parte application is flawed. Whereas plaintiff asserts that the Court will be hearing defendants' summary judgment motion alongside the Markman hearing, the Court's October 6, 2008, Order made clear that the only matter to be heard on November 3, 2008, is the Markman hearing, with the Court scheduling when the summary judgment motion will be heard "at the time of the Markman hearing." Thus, as it stands, the only matter being heard on November 3, 2008, is the aforementioned Markman hearing. Thus, judicial economy principles will not be served by combining the Markman hearing with those related to the discovery matters (which are currently scheduled for hearing on January 12, 2009). Accordingly, plaintiff's ex parte application is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. MINUTES FORM 90 CIVIL -- GEN Initials of Deputy Clerk: jh 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?