Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00009/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00009-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

 The matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRIOT RAIL CORP.,

a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0009 MCE EFB

vs.

SIERRA RAILROAD COMPANY,

a California corporation,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

 /

On June 16, 2010, during a hearing on Patriot Rail Corp.’s motion for a protective order,

Sierra Railroad Company filed a motion to compel production of documents and an ex parte

application for an order shortening the time for hearing the motion.1

 Dckt. No. 89. Upon being

made aware of Sierra’s application, the court ordered Patriot to file an opposition. Patriot filed

an opposition the same day. Dckt. No. 94. 

////

////

Case 2:09-cv-00009-TLN-AC Document 95 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

 This is not the first indication of dilatory practices on Sierra’s part. On June 10, 2010,

the court directed Sierra to file any opposition to Patriot’s motion to shorten time for a hearing

on a motion for a protective order by the close of business on June 14, 2010. Sierra failed to file

its opposition until the morning of June 16, 2010, right before the 10:00 a.m. hearing on the

motion.

2

The parties’ discovery cut-off date is June 18, 2010. Sierra contends that good cause

exists to hear the motion to compel on shortened time because “[g]iven the shortness of time

between plaintiff’s production of documents . . . and the close of discovery” there is no time for a

regularly noticed motion. Sierra does not explain why it failed to serve its discovery requests

with sufficient time to file a motion to compel before the discovery deadline.

This lawsuit was filed on December 31, 2008, almost 18 months ago. See Dckt. No. 20. 

On May 18, 2009, the court issued a scheduling order setting the discovery deadline for April 7,

2010. Dckt. No. 20. On April 5, 2010, the court extended the discovery deadline until May 21,

2010. Dckt. No. 66. On April 29, 2010, the court further extended the discovery deadline until

June 18, 2010. Dckt. No. 72.

Sierra did not serve the set of document requests at issue in its motion to compel until

May 7, 2010. After Sierra granted Patriot a two-day extension of time, Patriot served their

responses to the document requests on June 8, 2010, and served amended responses on June 9,

2010. Despite the impending June 18 discovery deadline, Sierra waited to file the instant

application for an order shortening time until June 16, 2010.

Sierra has failed to comply with Local Rule 251(b), which states that a motion “shall not

be heard” unless the parties have met and conferred. Sierra makes the bare contention that it has

been “unable to meet and confer” because of “the shortness of time between the production of

documents and the discovery deadline.” But Sierra had Patriot’s responses on June 9, and did

not file the instant application until June 16. There is no justification for Sierra’s failure to meet

and confer with Patriot during the intervening week.2

 

////

Case 2:09-cv-00009-TLN-AC Document 95 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

 As set forth in the district judge’s scheduling order, the discovery deadline is the date

on which all discovery is to be “completed,” which “means that all discovery shall have been

conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall

have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the

order has been obeyed.”

3

Sierra has not explained why it failed to serve this set of document requests knowing that

the discovery deadline left no time for a regularly noticed motion to compel, or why it failed to

attempt to meaningfully meet and confer with Patriot’s counsel between June 9 and June 16

regarding the sufficiency of the responses. Good cause for granting Sierra’s application for an

order shortening the time for hearing defendant’s motion to compel does not exist. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The application for an order shortening time is denied; and 

2. The accompanying motion to compel is therefore denied as untimely.3

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 17, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00009-TLN-AC Document 95 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 3