Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00992/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00992-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of Insurance 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

No. 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO

ORDER DENYING IN PART EX PARTE 

APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 

OF LAW

(Doc. No. 192.)

Between October 18, 2016 and October 27, 2016, this court conducted a bench trial in this 

action. On the final day of trial, and after consulting with counsel regarding the time needed by 

them, the court directed the parties to each submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of 

law of no more than twenty pages in length by November 9, 2016. (Doc. No. 187.) Additionally, 

the court advised the parties via minute order entered at the close of trial that no rough draft trial 

transcripts could be used for this purpose and directed the parties to contact the appropriate court 

reporters if an official trial transcript was deemed necessary by them. (Doc. No. 188.)

Early on November 8, 2016, the last day before the required proposed findings were to be 

filed, the court received multiple inquiries from plaintiff’s counsel concerning trial transcripts, 

including whether the use of rough drafts of transcripts was permitted in connection with the 

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. After being directed by chambers staff to the 

previously entered minute order, late in the day on November 8, 2016 plaintiff’s counsel 

Case 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO Document 193 Filed 11/09/16 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

27

28

2

submitted an expedited request for official trial transcripts and filed an ex parte application to 

extend the time to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Doc. Nos. 191, 192.)1 In support 

of the application for an extension of time plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration stating that 

“due to [his] own neglect,” he did not read the court’s prior order prohibiting citation to rough 

drafts of trial transcripts. (Doc. No. 192-1 at 1.) Therein, plaintiff’s counsel requested the court’s 

indulgence and asked for a nine-day extension of time to file plaintiff’s proposed findings of fact 

and conclusions of law so that he could obtain official transcripts of the trial proceedings and 

include citations to that official transcript in his filing. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff’s ex parte application will be denied in part. Counsel’s failure to review the 

court’s October 27, 2016 minute order provides no basis for extending the time for the parties’

submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court has indulged counsel 

with respect to scheduling and the conducting of the trial in this case which has been pending 

before the court for almost three and one half years. The court will not grant an extension of time 

to allow either party to obtain official trial transcripts, especially since the parties were advised at 

the conclusion of trial regarding the limitations on the use of rough drafts of transcripts and 

nonetheless did not request preparation of an official transcript until the eve of the filing deadline 

set by the court. Moreover, the court heard the testimony at trial and is in a position to consider 

all of the evidence admitted and to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. The court does not 

anticipate having an official trial transcript available in issuing its final judgment and does not 

believe that an official transcript is necessary for that purpose.

Because it appears that plaintiff’s counsel may need some time to edit his proposed 

findings of fact and conclusions of law as drafted in order to remove citations to the rough draft 

transcripts he possesses, the court will grant him one additional day to do so. For the reasons set 

forth above, plaintiff’s ex parte motion for an extension of time to file proposed findings of fact

/////

 

1

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time erroneously reflects the prior case number of 1:13-

CV-00992-AWI-SKO. (Doc. No. 192.) This case was reassigned on December 15, 2015, and a 

new case number of 1:13-CV-00992-DAD-SKO was assigned to it. (Doc. No. 66.)

Case 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO Document 193 Filed 11/09/16 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

27

28

3

and conclusions of law (Doc. No. 192) is granted in part and the parties’ submissions in this 

regard now must be filed by November 10, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO Document 193 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 3