Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01480/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01480-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WRI GOLDEN STATE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, d/b/a

FOOD MAXX,

Defendant /

No. C-07-1480 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE

EVIDENCE; CONTINUING HEARING ON

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion to Shorten Time for Motion to Exclude

Evidence or, in the Alternative, to Permit Deposition of Witnesses Disclosed After the Close

of Non-Expert Discovery,” filed April 10, 2008. Defendant has filed opposition. Having

read and considered the parties’ submissions, the Court rules as follows.

Plaintiff seeks to have its “Motion to Exclude Evidence or, in the Alternative, to

Permit Deposition of Witnesses Disclosed After the Close of Non-Expert Discovery”

(“Motion to Exclude”), also filed April 10, 2008, heard on May 2, 2008, the date the Court is

scheduled to conduct a hearing on defendant’s “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.” 

Plaintiff argues that because the evidence plaintiff seeks to exclude is offered by defendant

in support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, both motions should be heard

together.

The Court agrees that, in the interests of judicial economy, the motions should be

Case 3:07-cv-01480-MMC Document 83 Filed 04/17/08 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

27

28

2

heard together. In order to address defendant’s concern that it be afforded adequate time

to respond to the Motion to Exclude, however, the Motion to Exclude will be heard on a

regular briefing schedule, specifically, May 16, 2008, and the hearing on defendant’s

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment will be continued to May 16, 2008.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to shorten time is hereby DENIED; the Motion to

Exclude will be heard on May 16, 2008; and the hearing on defendant’s Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment is hereby CONTINUED to May 16, 2008.

Defendant’s reply to plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment remains due on April 18, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01480-MMC Document 83 Filed 04/17/08 Page 2 of 2