Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00971/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00971-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALPHALON CORPORATION, NO. CIV.S-05-0971 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

MEYER CORPORATION U.S.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

On the evening of March 6, 2006, defendant filed with the

court an “ex parte application for an order compelling depositions”

of three of plaintiff’s employees. That application seeks an order,

without hearing, compelling those three witnesses to appear for

deposition on March 9, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. (i.e., in less than two

days) and on March 10, 2006, pursuant to deposition notices served on

March 1, 2006. In the alternative, defendant seeks an order

requiring the witnesses to appear for deposition within the next

fourteen (14) days.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 54 Filed 03/08/06 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

 The Local Rules authorize ex parte applications for an order 1

shortening time but also requires that any proposed order include

blanks for the Court to designate the time and date of the hearing

and for the filing of any response to the motion. See L.R. 6-144(e).

Thus, the Local Rules contemplate a hearing on the underlying motion

if the ex parte application for order shortening time is granted. 

Here, defendant has applied ex parte for an immediate order

compelling the appearance of witnesses for deposition later this

week. 

2

The latter request cannot be granted by the undersigned

because, under the amended scheduling order in this action, the last

day for all non-expert discovery to be completed in this case is

March 10, 2006. With respect to defendant’s first request, the Local

Rules certainly allow a party to make an ex parte application for an

order shortening time. See L.R. 6-144(e). They do not, however,

provide for the hearing of discovery motions on an ex parte basis.

See L.R. 37-251. Nor has defendant shown good cause for this court 1

to order the last minute depositions of witnesses without providing

plaintiff an opportunity to be heard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s ex parte

application is denied. Of course, this order is without prejudice to

any party, or the parties jointly, seeking an extension of the nonexpert discovery cut-off date in this action.

DATED: March 8, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1\orders.civil\calphalon.ost.deny

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 54 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2