Riccardi v. Lynch et al

Filing 328

ORDER On Shareholder Copeland's Motion to Shorten Time by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte: denying 321 Motion. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION

8
9

Case No. 12-cv-06003-CRB (EDL)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

7

ORDER ON SHAREHOLDER
COPELAND'S MOTION TO SHORTEN
TIME

ALL ACTIONS

10

Re: Dkt. No. 321

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
On March 20, 2015, Shareholder Copeland filed a motion seeking an order for discovery in

13
14

connection with the third amended and restated stipulation of settlement (“Discovery Motion”)

15

and a motion to shorten time on the hearing of the Discovery Motion. On March 24, 2015,

16

Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company (“Defendant HP”) opposed the motion to shorten time. The

17

next day, Lead Plaintiff Stanley Morrical also opposed the motion.1 Shareholder Copeland’s

18

motion to shorten time violates Civil Local Rules 6-3(a)(4)(i) and 37-1(a), which require counsel

19

to “have previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all disputed issues” prior to

20

bringing a motion to shorten time on a discovery dispute. Furthermore, Defendant HP represents

21

that it is willing to meet and confer with Shareholder Copeland and to respond to his document

22

requests and interrogatories. (Dkt. 325-1 (Wolinsky Decl.) ¶¶ 11, 13.) Nevertheless, the Court is

23

mindful of the time constraints identified in Shareholder Copeland’s motion. Therefore,

24

Shareholder Copeland’s motion to shorten time is DENIED without prejudice to a renewed motion

25

if counsel are unable to promptly meet and confer meaningfully, in good faith on the discovery

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff Morrical’s opposition is untimely. See Civil Local Rule 6-3(b) (“a party who opposes a
motion to enlarge or shorten time must file an opposition . . . no later than 4 days after receiving
the motion”).

1
2
3

requests.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2015

______________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2