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)

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