Reddy v. Precyse Solutions, LLC et al

Filing 71

ORDER re: Ex Parte Application to Amend the Scheduling Order; Opposition to Defendant's Motion is due 4/22/2015, Reply is due by 4/29/2015, Motion to Amend the Scheduling Hearing set for 5/6/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/13/2015. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KRISHNA REDDY,

12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB
ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER

v.
(ECF No. 68, 69)

14
15

PRECYSE SOLUTIONS LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff Krishna Reddy filed a motion for a protective order to preclude

18

Defendants from taking her deposition and motion to transfer this action. (ECF Nos. 63, 65.)

19

The motions are currently set for hearing on May 6, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9. On April

20

10, 2015, Defendants filed an ex parte motion to amend the discovery and motion deadlines due

21

to the discovery dispute.

22

Defendant’s motion to amend the scheduling order is an inappropriate use of an ex parte

23

application. “The expression ‘ex parte motion’ is a term of art. In its pure form it means a

24

request a party makes to the court without any notice to the other side.” Mission Power Eng'g Co.

25

v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

26

disfavored when relief may be had through a regularly noticed motion.” Hufnagle v. Rino Int'l

27

Corp., No. CV 10-08695 DDP VBKX, 2012 WL 6553743, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2012). The

28

Local Rules of the Eastern District recognize limited situations in which ex parte applications
1

“Ex parte relief is generally

1

may be filed: ex parte motions to extend time where the a stipulation cannot reasonably be

2

obtained as where a defendant has not been served or where there is an application to shorten time

3

(L.R. 144 (c) (e); injunctive relief (L.R. 231); and default judgment (L.R. 540). Defendant’s

4

request does not fall within any of these situations. Consistent with the Local Rules, the process

5

by which the Court could entertain such requests would be to for a party to file a motion to amend

6

the scheduling order and submit with that motion an application for an order shortening time to

7

hear the matter, with notice to the opposing party, and on good cause.

8
9

Since the matters embraced in the motions before the Court are related, the Court will
consider Defendant’s motion to amend the scheduling order during the May 6, 2015 hearing.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

12

Defendants’ motion to amend the scheduling order shall be heard on May 6, 2015
at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9;

13

2.

14

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to amend the scheduling order shall
be filed on or before April 22, 2015; and

15

3.

Defendants’ reply shall be filed on or before April 29, 2015.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 13, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2