Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-04866/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-04866-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Revised 11/`6/05 1

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BAY AREA CELLULAR TELEPHONE 

COMPANY

Plaintiff, No. C 03-4866 PJH

v. ORDER ON MOTION FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

THE CITY & COUNTY OF SAN AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT

FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, et al., CONFERENCE

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief, and defendant’s

opposition thereto, in which plaintiff requests (1) a CMC conference so that the court can

set a pretrial conference schedule and trial date on the remaining claims that were not

resolved on summary judgment; (2) that the court permit the parties to conduct additional

discovery to resolve the remaining claims in the case; and (3) that the court review and

reconsider Magistrate Judge LaPorte’s July 13, 2005 order excluding portions of plaintiff’s

outside expert’s rebuttal opinion. 

The court hereby GRANTS the motion with respect to setting a CMC conference

date in order to determine pretrial and trial dates; and DENIES the motion with respect to

plaintiff’s requests for additional limited discovery and reconsideration of Judge LaPorte’s

ruling, as follows. 

With respect to plaintiff’s request for additional discovery, nothing in the court’s prior

summary judgment order opened the door to new issues or arguments, and by extension,

to any sufficient grounds upon which to reopen discovery. The court merely held that as to

the issues placed in evidence by the parties, the evidence before the court was such that

disputed issues exist that must be resolved at trial. Moreover, plaintiff fails to factually

demonstrate that any issue introduced to the court on summary judgment was “new” to it,

Case 4:03-cv-04866-PJH Document 217 Filed 02/09/06 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

Revised 11/`6/05 2

or that it has in any way been surprised or prejudiced by any purportedly “new” arguments. 

Indeed, it would appear that plaintiff’s request is rooted in a desire to seek additional

support for its claims by conducting a more thorough job on discovery the second time

around. Such an attempt constitutes no more than the proverbial second bite at the apple.

With respect to its request for reconsideration of Judge LaPorte’s prior ruling, plaintiff

was required to file objections to the ruling within ten days of the ruling if it wished to

contest it, per the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Plaintiff’s failure

to do so constitutes waiver of its objections. Moreover, even if plaintiff had timely filed

objections, plaintiff’s failure to present any evidence of “new” facts or a change in law

nonetheless warrants denial of its reconsideration request, per Civil Local Rule 7-9. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and

Civil L. R. 16-10, a Case Management Conference will be held in this case on March 2,

2006, at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,

San Francisco, California.

Counsel shall meet and confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) prior to the Case

Management Conference with respect to those subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c). 

Not less than seven (7) calendar days before the conference, counsel shall file a joint

case management statement addressing each agenda item, to the extent relevant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-04866-PJH Document 217 Filed 02/09/06 Page 2 of 2