Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05255/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05255-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMISIL HOLDINGS LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARIUM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-5255 MJJ (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SHORTEN

TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO COMPEL

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY OR,

ALTERNATIVELY, RULE 26(f)

CONFERENCE

(Docket No. 55)

Plaintiff has asked the Court to hear its motion to compel expedited discovery or,

alternatively, Rule 26(f) conference on shortened time. More specifically, Plaintiff asks that the

motion be heard on the same date as the hearing on Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration (i.e.,

on December 8, 2006). Defendants have opposed the motion to shorten time, arguing, inter alia,

that Plaintiff has failed to show substantial harm or prejudice if its motion is not heard on shortened

time. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, and good cause

appearing therefor, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART the request for shortened time.

If this case is heard on 35 days notice without an order shortening time, it would not be heard

until early January 2007 since the Court is not available during the last week of December 2006. By

January, this case will have been pending for over 4 months. Plaintiff has an interest in moving the

litigation forward. On the other hand, the Court’s ruling on the instant motion should be informed

by its ruling on the motion to compel arbitration which will be heard on December 8, 2006. The

Case 4:06-cv-05255-SBA Document 67 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Court discerns no substantial prejudice to Plaintiff were a ruling on the instant motion deferred until

after that hearing.

Accordingly, Defendant shall file its opposition by December 6, 2006; Plaintiff shall file its

reply by December 13, 2006. The motion will be heard on December 20, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. This

schedule affords the Court an opportunity to rule on the motion to compel without subjecting

Plaintiff to further undue delay in commencing discovery should discovery be deemed appropriate.

This order disposes of Docket No. 55.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2006

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-05255-SBA Document 67 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 2