Embry v. ACER America Corporation
Filing
163
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 156 defendant's Ex Parte Motion for Additional Deposition Time. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2011)
1
2
*E-FILED 06-01-2011*
3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
7
12
KEVIN EMBRY, an individual, on behalf of
himself, the general public and those similarly
situated,
13
Plaintiff,
No. C09-01808 JW (HRL)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S EX
PARTE MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL
DEPOSITION TIME
v.
14
15
ACER AMERICA CORPORATION; and DOES
1 THROUGH 50,
16
[Re: Docket No. 156]
Defendant.
/
17
18
Defendant moves, on a purported ex parte basis, for an order allowing four additional
19
hours to depose plaintiff’s expert witness Kendyl Roman. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
20
Defendant’s motion, which was not properly brought as an ex parte matter under Civil Local
21
Rule 7-10, is procedurally improper. Moreover, on the record presented, this court finds no
22
good cause for allowing a further deposition of plaintiff’s expert. The motion is denied.
SO ORDERED.
23
24
Dated:
June 1, 2011
25
HOWARD R. LLOYD
26
27
28
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
5:09-cv-01808-JW Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2
Adam Gutride
3
Adam Joseph Bedel
4
Jeffery David McFarland
5
Seth Adam Safier
6
Stan Karas stankaras@quinnemanuel.com, calendar@quinnemanuel.com,
marthaherrera@quinnemanuel.com
adam@gutridesafier.com
ajbedel@quinnemanuel.com
jdm@quinnemanuel.com, lig@quinnemanuel.com
seth@gutridesafier.com
7
Todd Michael Kennedy
todd@gutridesafier.com
8
9
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?