Stewart et al v. State of California

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING 86 EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.(pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KENNETH STEWART,

9
10

v.

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 86

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-01778-PJH

Plaintiff,

8

12
13

The court is in receipt of plaintiff Kenneth Stewart’s “ex parte” motion to shorten

14

time for hearing on his proposed motion to modify the scheduling order and proposed

15

motion for leave to take more than ten depositions (Dkt. 86).

16

Local Rule 7-10 requires a party filing a motion ex parte to cite the specific statute,

17

rule, or order that permits the use of such motion under the given circumstances. Civ.

18

L.R. 7-10.

19

In his ex parte motion, plaintiff cites only Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(c)(1)(C)

20

and Local Rule 7-10. Plainly, Local Rule 7-10 itself may not circuitously serve as the rule

21

authorizing plaintiff to use an ex parte motion to obtain the relief requested. Federal Rule

22

of Civil Procedure 6(c)(1)(C) allows a motion to be heard at a different time than would

23

otherwise follow Rule 6(c)’s regular notice procedures upon a court order. Fed. R. Civ.

24

Pro. 6(c)(1)(C). That rule further provides that a party “may, for good cause, apply ex

25

parte” for such order. Id. However, plaintiff has not shown how this rule applies to the

26

instant circumstances, particularly when Local Rule 6-3(a)(4) expressly contemplates the

27

sort of administrative relief he seeks here. Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)(4) (“6-3. Motion to Change

28

Time . . . (a)(4) If the motion is to shorten time for the Court to hear a motion . . . ”)

1

(emphasis added). As a result, plaintiff has failed to satisfy Local Rule 7-10 and his

2

motion is DENIED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: November 5, 2019
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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

1

In any event, plaintiff has not actually filed his proposed motions. Given their absence,
there is no schedule for the court to shorten in the first instance.
2