Nelson v. Millennium Laboratories, Inc., etal.

Filing 71

ORDER DENYING Millennium Laboratories, Inc's Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time on its Motion to Unseal Portions of Deposition Testimony. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/8/2014. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
In Re Ryan Uehling

Case No. 1: 13-mc-00022-BAM

Kelly Nelson,

ORDER DENYING MILLENNIUM
LABORATORIES, INC.’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME
ON ITS MOTION TO UNSEAL
PORTIONS OF RYAN UEHLING’S
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
Millennium Laboratories, Inc., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

Pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona as Case No. 2: 12-cv-01301-SLG

16
17
18
19

I.

INTRODUCTION

Currently before the Court is Millennium Laboratories, Inc.’s (“Millennium”) Ex Parte

20

application to shorten time on its motion to unseal portions of Ryan Uehling’s deposition testimony.

21

(Doc. 69.) A hearing was held on May 8, 2014. Counsel Stephanie Borchers appeared by telephone

22

for Ryan Uehling. Ryan Eddings appeared by telephone for Millennium. Having considered the

23

parties’ arguments and the entire record in this case, Millennium’s Ex Parte Application is DENIED.

24
25

II.

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 144(e) governs ex parte applications to shorten time. “Ex Parte applications to

26

shorten time will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel showing a satisfactory explanation

27

for the need for the issuance of such an order . . . .” L.R. 144(e). Courts in the Fresno Division of

28

Eastern District of California have interpreted this rule to require a showing of “good cause” to hear

ORDER

1

a motion on shortened time. See, Flores v. Merced Irr. Dist., No. 09-cv-1529-LJO-DLB, 2010 WL

2

4877795 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 23, 2010) (“Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to hear the motion

3

on shortened time.”)

4

Millennium has not shown good cause to hear its motion to unseal on shortened time.

5

Millennium argues the approaching trial date in the underlying Nelson litigation – July 29, 2014 –

6

creates the need for expedited relief. The proximity of the Nelson trial date is not good cause for

7

expedited consideration of Millennium’s motion to unseal. As the Court explained during the May

8

8, 2014 hearing, there numerous remedies Millennium can seek at trial from the Nelson court

9
10
11
12
13
14

concerning Mr. Uehling’s testimony. Moreover, Millennium’s regularly noticed motion, currently
set for hearing on May 30, 2014, provides ample time for this Court to consider the matter before the
Nelson trial.
Millennium also argues that “Uehling continues to disobey this Court’s June 27, 2013 Order
[, and] Millennium intends to move to hold Uehling in contempt . . . .” (Doc. 69, 2: 5-6.) The
Court’s June 27, 2013 ordered Mr. Uehling to sit for an additional deposition under seal, and has no
relation to the request before this Court. As a practical matter, if Mr. Uehling has refused to answer

15

certain questions, such conduct cannot possibly concern Millennium’s motion to unseal deposition

16

testimony because the testimony does not yet exist. Moreover, even if Mr. Uehling’s refusal to

17

answer certain questions was improper, this conduct does not create good cause to hear

18

Millennium’s motion to unseal on an expedited basis, especially since the defendants have copies of

19

the transcript. The issue of unsealing merely centers around their use at trial.

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24
25
26

//
//
//
//

27

//

28
ORDER

1

Accordingly, in light of the present issues and those previously litigated with regard to

2

sealing and to give each side an adequate amount of time to brief the issues to this Court for its

3

consideration, the Court finds that no good cause exists to expedite this unsealing request.
III.

4
5
6
7

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Millennium’s Ex Parte Application to shorten time on its motion to
unseal documents is DENIED.
The Court further ORDERS the parties, no later than May 15, 2014, SHALL meet and confer
in order to narrow the portions of the transcripts which are in fact in dispute.

8
9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 8, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER