Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-21151/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-21151-65/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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 particular circumstances underlying

the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ELENA DEL CAMPO, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN CORRECTIVE

COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 01-21151 JW (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

[Docket No. 915]

Plaintiffs Elena Del Campo, Lois Artz, Lisa Johnston and Ashorina Medina move to shorten

time on their motion to compel non-party Caprock Group, Inc. to produce documents. (collectively

“plaintiffs”). Non-party Caprock Group, Inc. opposes the motion. (“CGI”). Having reviewed the

papers and considered the arguments of counsel,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to shorten time is denied.1

Plaintiffs state that the joint pretrial statement is due on October 4, 2010 and the documents

sought from non-party CGI may be “critical to [their] ability to obtain and use the documents sought

in the subpoena.” Mot. at 2. Specifically, plaintiffs seek financial records related to defendants Don

Mealing and Inc. Fundamentals. Mot. at 3. Plaintiffs request that their motion be heard on

Case 3:01-cv-21151-SI Document 922 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER, page 2

September 14, 2010 rather than the noticed hearing date of September 21, 2010, or one week earlier.

Non-party CGI opposes the motion due to certain scheduling conflicts. The sole attorney for

defendants Mealing and Hasney is scheduled to appear in San Bernadino Superior Court on an

unrelated matter. He further requests that the motion to compel defendants Mealing and Hasney to

supplement their discovery responses now scheduled to be heard on September 7, 2010 be joined

with this motion so that both motions can be heard on September 21, 2010. Defendants’ counsel

seeks to avoid the additional expense that would be incurred in making two trips from southern

California. 

Civ. L.R. 6-3 states that a motion to enlarge or shorten time must:

(1) Set forth with particularity the reasons for the requested enlargement or

shortening of time;

(2) Describe the efforts the party has made to obtain a stipulation to the time

change;

(3) Identify the substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court did not

change the time; and

(4) If the motion is to shorten time for the Court to hear a motion:

(i) Describe the moving party’s compliance with Civil L.R. 37-1(a),

where applicable, and 

(ii) Describe the nature of the underlying dispute that would be addressed

in the motion and briefly summarize the position each party had taken.

(5) Disclose all previous time modifications in the case, whether by stipulation or

Court Order;

(6) Describe the effect the requested time modification would have on the

schedule for the case.

Civ. L.R. 6-3(a). 

Plaintiffs have not identified the substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the court

did not change the time. Specifically, plaintiffs have not shown how documents from non-party CGI

are critical to the joint pretrial statement. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to shorten time is denied. 

Additionally, both motions, including the motion to compel non-party CGI to produce documents

and the motion to compel defendants Mealing and Hasney to supplement their discovery responses, 

Case 3:01-cv-21151-SI Document 922 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER, page 3

shall be heard on September 21, 2010 at 10AM. 

Plaintiffs may file a reply brief in support of their motion to compel non-party CGI to

produce documents no later than September 7, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2010 

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:01-cv-21151-SI Document 922 Filed 08/25/10 Page 3 of 3