Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05871/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05871-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EDWARD L. SCARFF, et. al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et. al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

AND RELATED CLAIMS

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 03-03394 JF/PVT

C 03-04829 JF/PVT

C 03-05871 JF/PVT

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED

REQUEST FOR ORDER

SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL 

On August 23, 2005, the parties filed a proposed stipulated order shortening the time for

hearing Defendants’ motion to compel interrogatory responses.1 Based on the stipulation and the file

herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties request to shorten time is DENIED.

The court notes that the parties met and conferred on July 29, 2005, at which time the

deadline for filing motions for summary judgment was August 16, 2005. Given this original time

constraint, the moving parties have not shown good cause or otherwise explained why they waited

until August 23, 2005 to file their motion. While it is laudable for the parties to attempt to resolve

discovery disputes without seeking court intervention, parties must be mindful of looming deadlines

so as to avoid requesting last minute review of complicated and lengthy discovery disputes.

Case 5:03-cv-05871-JF Document 85 Filed 08/24/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 The court notes that the moving parties failed to provide a proper notice date pursuant

to Civil L.R. 7-2(b). 

ORDER, page 2

In short, the proposed briefing schedule is not acceptable to the court as it provides

insufficient time for the court to review the numerous discovery disputes raised in the underlying

motion. In light of all the circumstances, the court finds that advancing the hearing date is not

warranted

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than August 30, 2005, Defendants shall file an

amended notice of motion in compliance with Civil L.R. 7-2(b).2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than August 30, 2005, Defendants shall file an

amended motion to compel, properly organized in compliance with Civil L.R. 37-2.

Dated: August 24, 2005

 /s/ Patricia V. Trumbull 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05871-JF Document 85 Filed 08/24/05 Page 2 of 2