CoStar Realty Information, Inc. et al v. Klein & Heuchan, Inc. et al

Filing 22

CoStar Realty Information, Inc. et al v. Klein & Heuchan, Inc. et al

Doc. 22 Att. 24

Exhibit 13

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:08-cv-01 039-RGK-PLA Document 101 Filed 10/24/2008 Page 1 of 2

1

2
3

4
5 6
7

8 9 10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

12 BEYOND SYSTEMS, INC.,

13 Plaintiff,

) No. CV 08-1039-RGK (PLAx)
)

14 v.

) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE ) APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL

) DEPOSITIONS
) ) ) ) )

15 CONNEXUS CORP., etgl,

16 Defendants.
17

18 The Court has reviewed plaintiffs Ex Parte Application for an order allowing it to take three
19 additional depositions beyond the ten deposition limit of Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i), filed on
20 October 22, 2008 (the "Application"), defendants' Opposition thereto, and the documents filed in

21 connection therewith. Plaintiffs Application is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff seeks relief on
22 an ex parte basis because the discovery cut-off is November 18, 2008, and it thus "must notice

23 and take these() depositions forthwith." Application, at 8. It further indicates that it has been

24 working diligently to meet and confer with defendants over this issue, but defendants "only
25 recently" notified plaintiff that they would not stipulate to the additional depositions. lç

26 Plaintiff has not established that, with the exercise of due diligence, it could not have moved
27 for an order to take these additional depositions at an earlier time, or that it only now discovered

28 the need to take these depositions. Rather, plaintiff simply sets forth the identities of those

Case 2:08-cv-01039-RGK-PLA Document 101

Filed 10/24/2008 Page 2 of 2

1 individuals whose depositions it would take, but offers no explanation for not having determined
2 prior to this time that it would need to take more than ten depositions.1 This is the risk a part

3 takes when conducting discovery toward the close of the discovery period. Indeed, the District
4 Judge denied the parties' stipulation to extend the schedule in this matter, including the discovery
5 cut-off date, despite plaintiffs explanation that it has not been able to complete discovery within

6 the allocated time period. Ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief and should be
7 used with discretion. See Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 883

8 F.Supp. 488 (C.D. CaL. 1995). Plaintiff has not provided an adequate excuse for not pursuing the
9 relief it seeks prior to this time, or shown the exercise of dilgence that would warrant this

10 extraordinary relief.
11

12

13 DATED: October 24, 2008
14 15

/S/

PAUL L. ABRAMS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17 18

19

20
21

22

23 24 25 26
27 28
Plaintiff indicates that the defaults of defendants MailCompanyX and Sebastian Barale were "recently" set aside, and their depositions have not yet been taken. However, the district judge ordered that the defaults be set aside on August 11, 2008, and yet the deposition notices were not served until October 18, 2008, over two months later.

2