Pacific Marine Center, Inc. et al v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company

Filing 193

ORDER Denying in Part 192 Ex Parte Application to Extend Time to File Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/9/2016. (Parties' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law now must be filed by November 10, 2016.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, INC.,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO

Plaintiff,
v.
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING IN PART EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
(Doc. No. 192.)

Between October 18, 2016 and October 27, 2016, this court conducted a bench trial in this

18

action. On the final day of trial, and after consulting with counsel regarding the time needed by

19

them, the court directed the parties to each submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of

20

law of no more than twenty pages in length by November 9, 2016. (Doc. No. 187.) Additionally,

21

the court advised the parties via minute order entered at the close of trial that no rough draft trial

22

transcripts could be used for this purpose and directed the parties to contact the appropriate court

23

reporters if an official trial transcript was deemed necessary by them. (Doc. No. 188.)

24

Early on November 8, 2016, the last day before the required proposed findings were to be

25

filed, the court received multiple inquiries from plaintiff’s counsel concerning trial transcripts,

26

including whether the use of rough drafts of transcripts was permitted in connection with the

27

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. After being directed by chambers staff to the

28

previously entered minute order, late in the day on November 8, 2016 plaintiff’s counsel
1

1

submitted an expedited request for official trial transcripts and filed an ex parte application to

2

extend the time to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Doc. Nos. 191, 192.)1 In support

3

of the application for an extension of time plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration stating that

4

“due to [his] own neglect,” he did not read the court’s prior order prohibiting citation to rough

5

drafts of trial transcripts. (Doc. No. 192-1 at 1.) Therein, plaintiff’s counsel requested the court’s

6

indulgence and asked for a nine-day extension of time to file plaintiff’s proposed findings of fact

7

and conclusions of law so that he could obtain official transcripts of the trial proceedings and

8

include citations to that official transcript in his filing. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff’s ex parte application will be denied in part. Counsel’s failure to review the

9
10

court’s October 27, 2016 minute order provides no basis for extending the time for the parties’

11

submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court has indulged counsel

12

with respect to scheduling and the conducting of the trial in this case which has been pending

13

before the court for almost three and one half years. The court will not grant an extension of time

14

to allow either party to obtain official trial transcripts, especially since the parties were advised at

15

the conclusion of trial regarding the limitations on the use of rough drafts of transcripts and

16

nonetheless did not request preparation of an official transcript until the eve of the filing deadline

17

set by the court. Moreover, the court heard the testimony at trial and is in a position to consider

18

all of the evidence admitted and to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. The court does not

19

anticipate having an official trial transcript available in issuing its final judgment and does not

20

believe that an official transcript is necessary for that purpose.

21

Because it appears that plaintiff’s counsel may need some time to edit his proposed

22

findings of fact and conclusions of law as drafted in order to remove citations to the rough draft

23

transcripts he possesses, the court will grant him one additional day to do so. For the reasons set

24

forth above, plaintiff’s ex parte motion for an extension of time to file proposed findings of fact

25

/////

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time erroneously reflects the prior case number of 1:13CV-00992-AWI-SKO. (Doc. No. 192.) This case was reassigned on December 15, 2015, and a
new case number of 1:13-CV-00992-DAD-SKO was assigned to it. (Doc. No. 66.)
2

1

and conclusions of law (Doc. No. 192) is granted in part and the parties’ submissions in this

2

regard now must be filed by November 10, 2016.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated:

November 9, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3