Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03092/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03092-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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 1 Although the parties were given leave to complete previously noticed

depositions by May 31, 2006, that extension of time was expressly not to be construed as an

extension of the May 15, 2006 fact discovery cut-off for any other purpose. (See Stipulation

and Order to Revise the Court’s Case Management Scheduling Order, Docket No. 25).

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KLA-TENCOR CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE OF

PITTSBURGH, PA and AIU INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C05-03092 RMW (HRL)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL

On August 8, 2006, plaintiff KLA-Tencor Corporation (“KLA”) filed two motions

seeking to compel deposition testimony of Geni Krogstad and Joseph Cardinale. The parties

stipulate that the motions be heard on shortened time by this court on August 29, 2006. 

However, the motions to compel indicate that Ms. Krogstad and Mr. Cardinale are percipient

(not expert) witnesses. Pursuant to the case management schedule set by the District Court, fact

discovery closed on May 15, 2006.1

 Accordingly, the last day to move to compel discovery was

May 24, 2006, and KLA’s August 8, 2006 motions to compel are untimely. See Civ. L. R. 26-2

(“Where the Court has set separate deadlines for fact and expert discovery, no motions to

compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7 court days after the fact discovery cut-off . .

*E-FILED ON 8/9/06*

Case 5:05-cv-03092-RMW Document 154 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 3
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

..”). Moreover, it appears that summary judgment motions are set to be heard by the District

Court on August 18, 2006.

Accordingly, the request for an order shortening time is DENIED. The parties will need

to seek appropriate relief from the District Court with respect to the filing of motions to compel

discovery now.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

August 9, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-03092-RMW Document 154 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5:05-cv-3092 Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Jeffrey John Bouslog JBouslog@Oppenheimer.com, ATrampe@oppenheimer.com;

DPeterfeso@oppenheimer.com; DGrimes@oppenheimer.com 

Stephen P. Ellingson sellingson@hayesdavis.com, abowman@hayesdavis.com; ;

sxs1@hayesdavis.com 

Linda M. MacLeod lmacleod@mffmlaw.com, wsiamas@mffmlaw.com 

Adam C. Trampe ATrampe@Oppenheimer.com, dpeterfeso@oppenheimer.com 

Katherine Mary Wilhoit , Esq Kwilhoit@oppenheimer.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:05-cv-03092-RMW Document 154 Filed 08/09/06 Page 3 of 3