Yarbrough et al v. City of South Lake Tahoe et al

Filing 27

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/17/13 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 25 Ex Parte Application is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LEIGH-ELLEN YARBROUGH, individually; LEIGH-ELLEN TARBROUGH, as Guardian of Thomas Yarbrough, Jonathan Yarbrough, Nicolas Yarbrough; THOMAS YARBROUGH, a minor, by Leigh-Ellen Yarbrough, his guardian; JONATHAN YARBROUGH, a minor, by Leigh-Ellen Yarbrough, his guardian; NICOLAS YARBROUGH, a minor, by Leigh-Ellen Yarbrough, his guardian, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 No. 12-cv-01806 TLN-AC ORDER Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, a municipality; TAHOE SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT (TSE), a Nevada corporation; STAN SHERER, an individual; VAN OLESON, an individual; CHRIS CEFALU, an individual, Defendant. The court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for an order extending time for 25 initial expert witness disclosures. (ECF 25.) Plaintiff requests this ex parte relief on the grounds 26 that (1) there is a pending motion for judgment on the pleadings, (2) Plaintiff intends to seek 27 leave of court to file an amended complaint, and (3) Defendants have not agreed upon a date to 28 1 1 2 depose a non-party witness. The court finds that Plaintiff cites no factual circumstances or issue of law justifying the 3 need to resolve, on an ex parte basis, what essentially amounts to a motion to modify the pretrial 4 scheduling order under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In other words, 5 Plaintiff’s ex parte scheduling request fails to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required 6 for the extraordinary ex parte relief Plaintiff seeks. See AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. v. 7 Toll Free Yellow Pages Corp., 2009 WL 4723613 at *1 (C.D.Cal. Dec. 2, 2009) (“Ex parte 8 applications are solely for extraordinary relief and should be used with discretion.”) The court 9 will, however, entertain a motion to modify the pretrial scheduling order and/or reopen discovery. 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff Ex Parte Application is DENIED. 11 12 Dated: October 17, 2013 13 14 15 16 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?