Solis v. Target Corporation

Filing 103

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/07/2016 DENYING 101 Application for an order shortening time. (Butolph, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAVIER SOLIS,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:14-cv-0686 KJM DB
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

TARGET CORPORATION, a corporation
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On October 14, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to plaintiff’s

19

request for production of documents set six and special interrogatories set three. (ECF No. 97.)

20

On October 28, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to plaintiff’s request for

21

production of documents sets five and seven. (ECF No. 100.) Both motions are noticed for

22

hearing before the undersigned on November 18, 2016.

23

On November 1, 2016, plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time

24

to hear both of plaintiff’s motions to compel on either November 10 or 14. (ECF No. 101.)

25

Defendant filed an opposition on November 2, 2016, wherein defendant argues, in part, that the

26

parties have not met and conferred over the discovery at issue. (ECF No. 102.) Plaintiff’s

27

application for an order shortening time argues that hearing the motions on shortened time is

28

necessary because November 18, 2016, “is currently scheduled for the last day of discovery” and
1

1

that November 18, 2016, was “selected because it was the only regularly scheduled date the Court

2

had available before the November 18, 2016 discovery cut off because November 11, 2016 is a

3

Court Holiday.” (ECF No. 101 at 2.) Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel “had previously committed to

4

teach” a seminar on November 18, 2016. (Id.)

5

Local Rule 251(a) provides that a motion to compel further responses must be noticed for

6

hearing “at least twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing and service.” Local Rule 144(e)

7

provides that “[e]x parte applications to shorten will not be granted except upon affidavit of

8

counsel showing a satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order . . . .”

9

In this regard, under the Local Rules, plaintiff’s October 28, 2016 motion to compel could not

10

have been noticed for hearing prior to November 18, 2016. That November 11, 2016 is a court

11

holiday is irrelevant. Nor is it relevant that plaintiff’s counsel has a prior commitment on that

12

date. Under these circumstances, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s counsel has not provided a

13

satisfactory explanation for the need to hear plaintiff’s October 28, 2016 motion to compel on

14

shortened time.
Moreover, plaintiff commenced this action on March 13, 2014, and plaintiff’s current

15
16

counsel has had nearly seven months to complete discovery under the April 14, 2016 Status

17

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order, issued by the assigned District Judge. (ECF No. 67.) That the

18

undersigned holds law and motion on Fridays and that the court would be closed on Friday

19

November 11, 2016, in observation of Veterans Day were not unknown to plaintiff’s counsel.

20

And even if the undersigned granted plaintiff’s application for an order shortening time and heard

21

plaintiff’s motion to compel on November 10, 2016, defendant would have only eight days to

22

comply with any order. Under these circumstances, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s counsel

23

has not provided a satisfactory explanation for the need to hear plaintiff’s October 14, 2016

24

motion to compel on shortened time.

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 1, 2016 application

1
2

for an order shortening time (ECF No. 101) is denied.1

3

Dated: November 7, 2016

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.civil\solis0686.ost.den.2

24
25
26
27
28

1

The parties are, of course, free to submit a stipulated request for an extension of the discovery
deadline or to individually submit such a request.
3