Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06663/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06663-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTRAL VALLEY CHRYSLER CASE NO. CV-F-04-6663 REC LJO

VALLEY JEEP, INC., et al., 

 ORDER ON MOTIONS

Motion for Protective Order

Plaintiff, Date: March 24, 2006

vs. Time: 8:30 a.m

Dept.: 8 (LJO)

CATHERINE E. WITHERSPOON, 

Application to Continue Trial

Date: April 3, 2006

Defendants. Time: 9:00

 / Dept.: 8 (LJO)

 

This Court conducted a hearing on March 17, 2006 in Department 8 on two disputed motions:

(1) Defendant Catherine Witherspoon’s ex parte application to continue the trial and all trial-related

dates, and (2) the parties’ noticed motion for a protective order. The parties, intervenors and non-parties

appeared by counsel as stated on the record.

On the motion for protective order, for good cause shown, the parties shall file with the Court

on or before 5:00 p.m. PST on March 22, 2006 a short brief on their position as to whether Brown Bag

Software Inc. v. Symantec Corp, 960 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1992) applies in this case. In addition, the brief

should address: why an evidentiary hearing either is or is not appropriate; what the party perceives as

the scope and conduct of the evidentiary hearing, if one is conducted, and including potential dates and

a time estimate. The Court SETS a further hearing on this motion for March 24, 2006 at 8:30 a.m in

Department 8. In the meantime, the parties are to meet and confer in an attempt to reach agreement on

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 183 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 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

2

the protective order between plaintiffs and defendant intervenors.

AT THE HEARING ON MARCH 24, COUNSEL ARE TO BE PREPARED TO

ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHY PARTIES SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO

ADDRESS THE LEGAL ISSUE OF PREEMPTION IMMEDIATELY, AND SET A BRIEFING

SCHEDULE TO ADDRESS THAT MATTER.

On the application for continuance of the trial, for good cause shown, the Court CONTINUES

the hearing to April 3, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 8. Counsel for the Defendant is DIRECTED to

confer with appropriate defendant decision-makers to determine the issue discussed at the hearing of

delay in the date of enforcement of the regulation. The parties are directed to meet and confer no later

than four (4) Court days of March 17, 2006 as to potential trial dates and in light of the decision

regarding the delay in regulation enforcement. At the hearing on April 3, 2006, counsel for defendant

Witherspoon will have an answer to the question of whether the State of California will forego

enforcement of the law at issue in this litigation for a time equal to the time being requested to extend

the trial date. The parties shall file with the Court on or before 5:00 p.m. PST on March 28, 2006 a short

brief on their position regarding the trial continuance.

Counsel are encouraged to attend the hearings by arranging a one line conference call and

telephoning the Court at 559-499-5680. Defendant and defendant intervenors are directed to coordinate

their response and to submit one filing, for each motion, as to their position.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 183 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2