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)
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?