Home Savings of America et al v. Felipe et al

Filing 48

ORDER (1) regarding Plaintiff's "Ex Parte" Application and (2) VACATING the deadline for expert disclosures to be filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 3/1/2013. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA, et al., 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Plaintiff, v. 13 EMELITA FELIPE, et al., 14 15 Defendants. _____________________________________/ No. C 12-01419 LB ORDER (1) REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S “EX PARTE” APPLICATION AND (2) VACATING THE DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURES TO BE SERVED [Re: ECF No. 47] 16 I. PLAINTIFF SHALL NOT FILE ANY MORE “STATEMENTS” OR “EX PARTE 17 APPLICATIONS” THAT ACTUALLY ARE JUST NON-EX PARTE ADMINISTRATIVE 18 MOTIONS 19 On February 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “Statement to the Court re: ADR Status and Request for 20 Brief Continuance of ADR Completion Date.” Statement, ECF No. 33 at 1.1 In this “statement,” 21 Plaintiff requested that the court continue the deadline to complete ADR and stated that one 22 Defendant had no objection to the proposed continuance and that another Defendant did not believe 23 a stipulation was needed. See id. 24 On March 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Application and Ex Parte Application to Modify 25 Case Management Order re Expert Disclosure Deadlines Pending Post-Mediation Settlement 26 Negotiations.” “Ex Parte” Application, ECF No. 47. But as Plaintiff readily admits, its 27 28 1 Citations are the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronically-generated page numbers at the top of the page. C 12-01419 LB ORDER 1 “Application” is not even “ex parte” after all; all Defendants received notice of it. Id. at 2-3.2 2 In both of the above-described instances, what Plaintiff should have filed is an administrative 3 motion, which is described in clear terms in Civil Local Rule 7-11. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-11. 4 Parties use administrative motions to ask the court for relief with respect to miscellaneous 5 administrative matters, such as requests to exceed otherwise applicable page limits, to extend case 6 management deadlines, or to file a document under seal. See id. Following the procedures set forth 7 in Civil Local Rule 7-11 is important (and required) because that Rule provides applicable page 8 limits for such motions and provides that any party may file an opposition to the administrative 9 motion within 4 days. See id. These procedures, in turn, allow the court to review the proliferation of confusing briefs authored by confused parties from being filed. Accordingly, the 12 For the Northern District of California administrative motion, and any oppositions to it, in an efficient and orderly manner and prevent a 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 next time Plaintiff seeks administrative relief from this court, Plaintiff is ORDERED to review Civil 13 Local Rule 7-11 and follow it. 14 II. THE COURT WILL VACATE THE DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURES TO BE 15 SERVED AND IT WILL SET A NEW ONE AT THE MARCH 7, 2013 CASE 16 MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 17 In its “Ex Parte” Application, Plaintiff asks the court to continue the following deadlines: (1) for 18 expert disclosures to be served from March 10, 2013 (the current deadline) to April 21, 2013; (2) 19 rebuttal expert disclosures to be served from May 24, 2013 to July 5, 2013; and (3) for the 20 completion of expert discovery from June 4, 2013 to July 16, 2013. “Ex Parte” Application, ECF 21 No. 47 at 7. One problem with this request is that the dates Plaintiff proposed are contested and will 22 be the subject of discussion at the March 7, 2013 case management conference. See 2/28/2013 CMC 23 Statement, ECF No. 45 at 3-4. To ask the court to accept the proposed dates through the filing of an 24 improper “ex parte” application rather than an administrative motion with clear opposition deadlines 25 would possibly prevent Defendants from providing their input on the matter. Another problem is 26 that Plaintiff uses the spectre of increased attorney’s fees to persuade the court to grant its proposed 27 28 2 An ex parte motion, of course, is “a motion filed without notice to [an] opposing party.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-10. C 12-01419 LB ORDER 2 1 deadlines now rather than wait to discuss the deadlines at the case management conference, but the 2 deadlines at issue have been set since October 2012 and Plaintiff could have worked with 3 Defendants much earlier to adjust the deadlines without creating an attorney’s fees issue. 4 Nevertheless, in light of the parties’ purported ongoing settlement efforts and the upcoming 5 discussion of the deadlines at the March 7, 2013 case management conference, the court VACATES 6 the expert disclosure deadline (currently set for March 10, 2013), and it will set a new one at or after 7 the case management conference. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 1, 2013 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 12-01419 LB ORDER 3

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?