Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00962/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00962-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, No. C 05-0962 SBA

v. ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING

LEXUS OF SERRAMONTE, SONIC ON DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO

AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and FIRST MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER

AMERICA AUTOMOTIVE,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff’s Application to Shorten Time for Hearing on Defendants’

Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order Granting Motion to Compel, received by the court

on August 25, 2006. This request is the second discovery-related “emergency” issue that

has been filed before this court in the past three weeks, and that the court has been forced

to resolve in expedited fashion on the last day of the business week. For the reasons set

forth below, the court DENIES plaintiff’s request.

First, plaintiff seeks an order shortening time for a hearing to which plaintiff is not

entitled. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 72-2, “no hearing will be held concerning an objection to a

Magistrate Judge’s order” unless otherwise ordered by the assigned District Judge. 

Accordingly, unless Judge Armstrong, the assigned District Judge in this instance, chooses

to hold a hearing on defendants’ objections, no hearing will be held. 

Denial of plaintiff’s request in view of this rule makes sense. The parties appear to

raise numerous arguments that challenge, or at the very least impact, the current case

management schedule, including pretrial and discovery cutoff dates, as well as settlement

conference deadlines. Judge Armstrong, as the presiding judge in this case, has the

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 58 Filed 08/25/06 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

greatest amount of familiarity with the case, and is in the best position to pass upon the

parties’ arguments. 

For that reason, the court finds that it is most appropriate for Judge Armstrong,

rather than this court, to decide the issues presented by plaintiff’s request. Namely,

whether (1) a hearing on defendants’ objections should be held; (2) if so, when such

hearing should be held; and (3) what impact, if any, plaintiff’s request has on the overall

case management schedule. The court also finds that, as Judge Armstrong is scheduled to

return approximately one week from today’s date, the parties are not unduly prejudiced by

waiting until Judge Armstrong’s return for resolution of their underlying issues. 

 Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 58 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 2