Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02400/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02400-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT KOLLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MED FOODS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02400-RS 

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE 

MATTERS

1. Defendant has filed a motion seeking issuance of letters rogatory and presented that 

motion to the undersigned. Pursuant to the order of reference (Dkt. No. 54) this is a discovery 

matter that must be presented to the assigned magistrate judge.

2. Citing Civil Local Rule 7-10, defendant has filed an “ex parte application” to extend the 

briefing schedule on plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Although defendant’s application 

and proposed order fail to address the hearing date, a continuance would be necessary to 

accommodate the requested briefing extension. 

While labeled as “ex parte,” defendant’s application was in fact automatically served on 

plaintiff through the ECF system, and thus was not brought on an ex parte basis. See Rule 7-10 

(defining ex parte motions as those “filed without notice to opposing party.”) Defendant’s 

application will be deemed as having been brought, as would be appropriate, under Rule 6-3, 

which governs motions to change time.

Defendant contends additional time is necessary to prepare its opposition to class 

Case 3:14-cv-02400-RS Document 67 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 14-cv-02400-RS

2

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

certification in light of discovery that will need to be done, and because plaintiff filed the motion 

closer to the hearing date than was anticipated at the time of the prior case management 

conference, when that date was selected.

1

The record reflects a break down in the meet and confer process by which scheduling 

issues as this ordinarily should be resolved. Accordingly, the parties are directed to engage in 

further discussions to attempt to agree on both an extended briefing schedule and a new hearing 

date. No later than November 6, 2015, the parties shall either submit a stipulation setting a brief

schedule and a hearing date, or, in the event they are unable to reach agreement, a joint statement 

setting out their respective proposals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

 

1

Plaintiff filed the motion giving the minimum 35 days’ notice required by the local rules. 

Defendant complains that service of the motion was untimely (by a few hours) under a stipulation 

between the parties purporting to govern service by email. Under Rule 5-1(h)(1), e-filed 

documents are automatically deemed served, with exceptions not relevant here. While the parties 

are free to agree to more restrictive provisions, defendant’s assertion that it was given less notice 

than required under the local rules is incorrect.

Case 3:14-cv-02400-RS Document 67 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 2