Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 69

ORDER Re Plaintiff's 66 Ex Parte Application For Leave to File Objections to Defendant's Motion signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/4/2010. (Esteves, C)

Download PDF
Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Doc. 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ZANE HARDIN, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On July 20, 2010, this Court took Defendant's motion regarding expert disclosure and testimony of Plaintiff's expert witnesses (Doc. 55) off calendar and under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (Doc. 65.) On August 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed "Plaintiff's Application, Declaration and Objection Re Defendant Wal-Mart's Motion to Prohibit Expert Witnesses or to Compel Proper Disclosure and for Additional Time for Discovery." Plaintiff indicates he is making an "exparte [sic] application for leave to file an objection to Defendant's motion because "it has come to the attention of [Plaintiff]'s counsel that Defendant Wal-Mart's Motion did not comply with LR-251 . . .." (Doc. 66.) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) WAL-MART STORES, INC., and DOES 1- ) 100, inclusive, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) _____________________________________ ) 1:08-cv-00617 AWI GSA ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION (Document 66) U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6i0kij 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Any objection is clearly untimely. Defendant's motion was originally calendared for July 9, 2010 (Doc. 55), the Court then continued the hearing to July 23, 2010 due to its unavailability (Doc. 57), and subsequently took the matter off calendar and under submission on July 20, 2010. Morever, Plaintiff fails to offer good cause for his delay. Plaintiff's ex parte application is therefore DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 4, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?