Chartis Specialty Insurance Company v. Telegraph Hill Properties, Inc. et al

Filing 41

SCHEDULING ORDER. Further Case Management Conference set for 6/6/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/24/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2013)

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
CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,

No. C 11-05696 RS

12
Plaintiff,

SCHEDULING ORDER

13
v.
14
15
16
17
18

TELEGRAPH HILL PROPERTIES, INC.
and W.B. COYLE,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
CHARTIS SPECIALITY INSURANCE
COMPANY,

No. C 12-02935 RS

19
Plaintiff,
20
v.
21
THP-SF, INC. and DOES 1-30,
22
23

Defendants.

24
____________________________________/
25
26
27

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Chartis Specialty Insurance Company’s motion, styled as
an “unopposed motion for order to change times (setting briefing schedule for dispositive motions
and adjusting pre-trial calendar).” The motion is construed as a motion requesting an extension of

28
NOS. C 11-05696 & 12-02935 RS
ORDER

1

the current deadline for filing dispositive motions in the two above-captioned cases. The request is

2

granted; dispositive motions must be noticed for hearing no later than Thursday, April 25, 2013.

3

The further case management conference scheduled for March 28, 2013, is continued to June 6,

4

2013 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom three of the above-captioned court.

discovery must be completed by March 8, 2013.” The existing case management scheduling order

7

in these cases, dated August 9, 2012, set the close of non-expert discovery on November 30, 2012.

8

Non-expert discovery has been closed for nearly two months. No good cause has been shown in

9

Plaintiff’s motion as to why non-expert discovery should re-open. The request is therefore denied.

10
For the Northern District of California

The proposed order submitted with the motion contains the language “[n]on-expert

6

United States District Court

5

See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(4). The request for a deadline for the filing of pre-trial motions is also

11

denied as premature.

12

In addition, plaintiff’s earlier-filed “motion to consolidate cases and set briefing schedule” is

13

terminated as improperly noticed. Should plaintiff chose to bring a new motion to consolidate these

14

cases, it must do so in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: 1/24/13
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

NOS. C 11-05696 & 12-02935 ORDER

2