Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01906/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01906-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEN WALTERS and JOHN BONILLA, in their

respective capacities as Trustees of the

OPERATING ENGINEERS HEALTH AND

WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA, TRUSTEES OF THE PENSION

TRUST FUND FOR OPERATING ENGINEERS,

TRUSTEES OF THE PENSIONED OPERATING

ENGINEERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND,

TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS

AND PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS

PRE-APPRENTICESHIP, APPRENTICE AND

JOURNEYMEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

TRAINING FUND, TRUSTEES OF THE

OPERATING ENGINEERS VACATION AND

HOLIDAY PLAN, 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GOLDEN GATE CRANE & RIGGING, INC.,

A California Corporation,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-01906 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO

EXTEND TIME TO

COMPLETE DISCOVERY

On January 22, 2007, after a case management conference, the Court issued a case

management order setting a schedule for this action. The discovery cutoff was set for

August 31, 2007. On September 4, 2007, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to extend the

discovery cutoff and set a hearing for September 6. The Court has read the application and

finds that good cause to extend the discovery period has not been shown. The application

Case 3:06-cv-01906-WHA Document 90 Filed 09/05/07 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

makes clear that plaintiffs failed to complete discovery within the allotted time. Even if it is

true that defendants lulled plaintiffs’ counsel into forgoing discovery pending settlement

discussion, plaintiffs’ counsel were well aware of the deadline and the need to move to compel

within the seven-day period under the local rules, specifically rule 26-2. Plaintiffs’ counsel

have no one to blame but themselves for having sat on their rights. The application is DENIED

and the hearing is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01906-WHA Document 90 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 2