Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al

Filing 172

Order by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman denying 169 Motion to Shorten Time. The Court will adjudicate the motion to intervene without oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), following the filing of Stroz Friedberg's Reply. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2015).

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 CLEAR-VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,, Case No. 13-cv-02744-BLF Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME 9 10 JOHN H. RASNICK, et al., [Re: ECF 169] Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 On April 2, 2015, Proposed Intervenor Stroz Friedberg moved to intervene in this action 14 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1). Presently before the Court is Stroz 15 Friedberg’s motion to shorten time in which to hear its motion to intervene. Defendants oppose. 16 Stroz Friedberg was employed to forensically analyze Defendants’ electronic databases in 17 relation to this action, and moves to intervene based on a dispute over Defendants’ non-payment 18 for services rendered. See ECF 155 at 2. Trial in this case is scheduled to begin on June 8, 2015, 19 and Plaintiff and Defendants are scheduled to appear for pre-trial conference on May 28, 2015. 20 Stroz Friedberg asks the Court to shorten time because, if the motion to intervene is granted, it 21 wishes to “conduct limited discovery before the current trial date.” Mot. to Shorten Time, ECF 22 169 at 2. 23 Defendants oppose Stroz Friedberg’s motion to shorten time, and have indicated that they 24 will file an opposition to the motion to intervene on April 16, 2015. See Opp., ECF 171 at 2. 25 Defendants ask the Court to adjudicate Stroz Friedberg’s motion to intervene on the briefs alone, 26 so as not to pull the parties away from trial preparation. See id. 27 28 The Court ultimately agrees with Defendants. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the 1 Court finds that the motion to intervene is appropriately determined without oral argument.1 Stroz 2 Friedberg’s reply is due to be filed on April 23, 2015. The Court will promptly render a decision 3 on Stroz Friedberg’s motion upon receipt of its reply brief. This will permit the Court to issue its 4 decision prior to even the expedited April 30, 2015 hearing date requested by Stroz Friedberg. IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: April 14, 2015 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 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 1 26 27 28 Rule 7-1(b) also permits the Court to hold a telephone conference call instead of oral argument. See id. (“In the Judge’s discretion, . . . a motion may be determined without oral argument or by telephone conference call.”). If the Court finds that it needs additional information or argument in order to adjudicate the motion to intervene, it will contact the parties to schedule such a conference call. The parties shall make themselves available on April 27, 2015 if such a call is needed. 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?