Pacific Marine Center, Inc et al v. Silva

Filing 68

ORDER Denying Ex Parte Application For Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Modify The Scheduling Order 64 66 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/9/2010. (Esteves, C)

Pacific Marine Center, Inc et al v. Silva

Doc. 68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On July 7, 2010, Defendant Essegian filed a Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order and also filed an Ex Parte Application that the Motion be Heard on Shortened Time. (Doc. 64). Defendants Silva and Wilson joined in the motion on July 7, 2010. (Doc. 66). The basis for the request is that the non-expert discovery deadline is July 10, 2010. Defendant Essegian contends that more time is needed to conduct non-expert discovery in this case given that Plaintiff's deposition will not be taken until July 15 and July 16, 2010. The Court has reviewed the Ex Parte Applications for the Motion to be Heard on Shortened Time. The request is DENIED as Defendants have not established good cause. The Scheduling Order in this case was issued on February 4, 2010. Defendant Essegian waited over four months until June 16, 2010 to notice Plaintiff's deposition which was scheduled to be taken 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, INC., a California corporation; SONA VARTANIAN, an individual, ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) ) SCOTT SILVA, in his individual capacity; ) TOM WILSON, in his individual capacity; ) E. ESSEGIAN, in his individual capacity; ) and DOES 1-25, inclusively, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) 1:09 cv 1409 LJO-GSA ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER (Documents 64 and 66)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

on June 28, 2010. The Court granted Defendant's Ex Parte Application to hear two of Defendant Essegian's Motions to Compel last week. Hearing a motion on shortened time is an unusual remedy. In this case, the only reason for the request is that a discovery deadline that was set over five months ago will expire. Hearing a motion on shortened time not only inconveniences all of the parties, but also places a burden on the Court that has other properly noticed motions on calendar. Defendants shall place the Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order on the Court's calendar and give opposing counsel proper notice pursuant to Local Rule 230. If the Motion is granted, amendments to the scheduling order will be made nunc pro tunc, however, counsel are advised that this Court is hesitant to amend the scheduling order other than for the limited purposes outlined in the hearing last week.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: cf0di0

July 9, 2010

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2