American Small Business League v. Department of Defense

Filing 105

ORDER DENYING 104 STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY HEARING by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS
LEAGUE,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 14-02166 WHA

v.

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED
REQUEST TO CONTINUE
DISCOVERY HEARING

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Defendant.
/

16
17

On October 2, plaintiff submitted a letter “to inform the Court that [the parties] have

18

exhausted efforts to meet and confer concerning two outstanding discovery disputes . . . that are

19

ripe for adjudication.” That letter also noted that “[t]he parties . . . are available generally the

20

week of October 9, 2017 and thereafter” (Dkt. No. 101). An order dated October 3 set a meet-

21

and-confer and discovery hearing for October 10 to resolve those disputes (Dkt. No. 102). On

22

October 4, defendants also submitted a letter describing another “discovery dispute” concerning

23

defendants’ contentions that plaintiff’s “expert designations are both untimely and substantively

24

improper,” and the expert opinions in question are inadmissible to boot (Dkt. No. 103).

25

Today, the parties submitted a stipulated request to continue the meet-and-confer and

26

discovery hearing from October 10 to October 19 “or another subsequent date” on the basis that

27

defendants are internally considering whether to “release additional information [that] may

28

resolve some matters presently in dispute,” but “the additional information may not be released

1

by October 10, particularly if Sikorsky objects to the release.” Also, the parties add, “it will be

2

more efficient to postpone the meet-and-confer and discovery hearing for a short period,

3

particularly because counsel for ASBL will travel from Washington, D.C. to attend these events”

4

(Dkt. No. 104 ¶¶ 4–6). The request offers no other details regarding the timing of defendants’

5

internal deliberations. It provides no assurance that said deliberations would complete by

6

October 19 even if the requested continuance were granted. And it give no other explanation

7

why counsel’s travel from Washington, D.C., would be more efficient later rather than sooner.

8
9

The stipulated request is DENIED. The meet-and-confer and discovery hearing remain set
for October 10 at 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., respectively, and shall include the dispute raised by
defendants’ letter dated October 4 (Dkt. No. 103). Plaintiff may respond to that letter by

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

OCTOBER 8 AT NOON.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: October 5, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2