Lee v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company

Filing 75

ORDER by Judge Seeborg denying without prejudice 73 Motion to Shorten Time, and referring discovery disputes to Magistrate Judge (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
JESSICA LEE, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

15

No. C 11-0043 RS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, AND REFERRING
DISCOVERY DISPUTES TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants.
____________________________________/

16
17

Defendant Stonebridge Life Insurance Company moves, pursuant to Local Rule 6-3 for an

18

order shortening time to brief and hear a motion to compel, which it asserts it intends to file on

19

September 13, 2012. Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 72-1, the Court hereby refers the yet-

20

to-be-filed motion to compel and any further discovery disputes that may arise in this action to a

21

randomly assigned Magistrate Judge for resolution. Stonebridge shall comply with any standing

22

orders or procedures of the Magistrate Judge for obtaining resolution of the issues presented by it

23

motion to compel, whether on shortened time or otherwise. The request for an order shortening

24

time is therefore denied, without prejudice.

25

At this juncture, the only reason Stonebridge has offered as to why expedited consideration

26

of the motion to compel is necessary is the existing briefing schedule and hearing date for plaintiff’s

27

class certification motion. Stonebridge has not suggested undue prejudice would result from a

28

continuance of that schedule, should it prove necessary. Accordingly, in his or her discretion, the

1

Magistrate Judge may require Stonebridge to make such a showing in connection with any renewed

2

request to have the motion to compel issues resolved on shortened time. Unless the Magistrate

3

Judge concludes that the motion to compel issues should and reasonably can be disposed of in

4

adequate time to maintain the current briefing schedule and hearing date for class certification, the

5

Court will issue an order setting new dates.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: September 12, 2012

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2