Brinckerhoff v. Town of Paradise

Filing 72

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/6/11, ORDERING that defendant's 64 ex parte application to dismiss or continue plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 58 motion to compel and for sanctions is CONT'D to 7/14/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (GGH) before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows. Defendant shall file the joint statement for plaintiff's motion on or before July 11, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Defendant's 69 motion for protective order is GRANTED as set forth in this order. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MELISSA BRINCKERHOFF,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

NO. CIV. S-10-0023 MCE GGH

TOWN OF PARADISE,

14

Defendant.

15

ORDER
/

16

Presently before the court are defendant’s ex parte application to figuratively

17

dismiss or continue plaintiff’s motion, filed July 5, 2001, (dkt. # 64), and defendant’s motion for

18

protective order, filed July 6, 2011.1 (dkt. # 69.)

19

Counsel in this case figuratively have been at each other’s throats since this case

20

began. The dispute for this week involves defendant’s objection to having plaintiff’s motion

21

heard on July 12, 2011, as specially set by court order on June 28, 2011 because plaintiff did not

22

provide defense counsel with her portion of the joint statement in a timely fashion as prescribed

23

by the June 28th order. That order provided that “[e]ach moving party shall have its portion of

24

the joint statement prepared and delivered to the opposing party not later than two days prior to

25
26

1

The schedule and hearing for defendant’s motion is not affected by this order.
1

1

July 7, 2011.” (Dkt. # 61.) Defendant interprets this order to require delivery of plaintiff’s draft

2

portion to defendant by midnight on July 4. Defendant’s motion for protective order states that

3

defense counsel received plaintiff’s draft on July 5, 2011 at 8:50 p.m. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a

4

declaration in opposition to defendant’s ex parte application. (Dkt. # 71).

5

Defendant’s motion for protective order elaborates by explaining that without

6

having July 5th available to him to prepare the joint statement, defendant is unable to timely file

7

the joint statement which is due to be filed by July 7, 2011. Mr. Thorn states that he is obligated

8

to defend a deposition in another case in Chico on July 7, and tried to move that deposition

9

without success.2 He is also scheduled to attend the deposition of defendant’s former human

10

resources manager in this case on July 8, 2011, leaving insufficient time to prepare and file his

11

portion of the joint statement.

12

After holding a telephone conference regarding these matters on July 6, 2011, the

13

court now issues the following order.

14

IT IS ORDERED that:

15

1. Defendant’s ex parte application to dismiss or continue plaintiff’s motion, filed

16

July 5, 2011, (dkt. # 64), is granted.

17
18

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions, filed June 27, 2011, (dkt. #58),
is continued to July 14, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.

19

3. Defendant shall file the joint statement for plaintiff’s motion on or before July

20

11, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. All supporting papers must be attached to the joint statement. If signatures

21

are not immediately obtainable, the papers may be filed without signatures, with signed copies

22

filed at a later time.

23

////

24

////

25
2

26

According to defendant, the discovery cutoff in the other case is also July 21, 2011.
See Funk v. Town of Paradise, No. Civ. S -09-1000 MCE EFB (TEMP) (Dkt. # 12).
2

1

4. Defendant’s motion for protective order, filed July 6, 2011 (dkt. # 69), is

2

granted as set forth herein.

3

DATED: July 6, 2011

4
5

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GGH/076
Brinckerhoff0023.ooh.wpd

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