Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00554/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00554-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 315
Nature of Suit: Airplane Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARILYN GOETZKE, Widower, ) CIV S-03-554 GEB/JFM

Individually and As Personal )

Representative/Successor in )

Interest on Behalf of the Estate )

and heirs of LOREN GOETZKE, )

deceased; GENE GOETZKE; and )

GARY GOETZKE, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

) ORDER

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a )

Delaware Corporation; GENERAL )

ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New York )

Corporation; and ROTAIR INDUSTRIES,)

INC., a Connecticut Corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

ADRIAN VILLARUZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a )

Delaware Corporation; GENERAL )

ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New York )

Corporation; and ROTAIR INDUSTRIES,)

INC., a Connecticut Corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

On April 29, 2005, Defendant General Electric Company filed

a request for an order shortening time for a hearing on a motion to

amend the Rule 16 Scheduling Order, in which all parties join. The

Case 2:03-cv-00554-GEB -JFM Document 98 Filed 05/03/05 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

1 This is the fifth request for an order shortening time I have

received within the last nine days.

[A]pplications [for orders shortening time]

contravene the structure and spirit of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of

this court. Both contemplate that noticed motions

should be the rule and not the exception. . . .

[Order shortening time]applications throw the

system out of whack. They impose an unnecessary

administrative burden on the court . . . [by]

demand[ing] priority consideration. . . . In

effect, they put the applicant "ahead of the

pack," [often] without cause or justification. 

In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (Bankr. C.D.

Cal. 1989).

2

request to shorten time is denied,1 but as will be explained below,

the motion is decided in part and the remainder of it will probably be

rendered moot by an order which will most likely issue after the

status conference scheduled below. 

The motion argues in a conclusory fashion that the parties

have been diligent in their litigation but nevertheless need two

modifications to the Scheduling Order. Further, one of the attorneys

declares these modifications are also needed because he is about to

undergo surgery, which will interfere with his ability to personally

participate in discovery. 

The parties then propose July 1, 2005, as the new “discovery

completion” date and July 25, 2005, as the new “last day to hear

motions.” The workability of these proposals has been considered,

even though the issue of whether the motion meets the applicable

standard governing such motions has not yet been decided. What the

parties propose as the last law and motion hearing date is unworkable,

and indicates that the parties are unaware of why the Judge usually

Case 2:03-cv-00554-GEB -JFM Document 98 Filed 05/03/05 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

2 See Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference

filed March 18, 2003, at 3 n.4 (“Judge Burrell's typical pretrial

scheduling procedures require . . . that law and motion is cut off 60

days before the final pretrial conference. . . .”) 

3

schedules the last law and motion hearing date at least eight weeks

before the final pretrial conference.2 This eight week period is

usually prescribed so that the Judge will have sufficient time to

issue a ruling on a motion noticed for hearing on the last law and

motion date; most parties desire receiving such rulings in advance of

when they meet and confer on the joint pretrial statement which is

required to be filed at least seven days before the final pretrial

conference. The parties’ proposal of about four weeks between those

dates is rejected and that portion of the motion is denied. 

But the parties are given an opportunity to propose a

workable schedule, which modifies the Scheduling Order, in a filing on

or before May 10, 2005. A status hearing is scheduled in this action

on May 16, 2005, at 8:30 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00554-GEB -JFM Document 98 Filed 05/03/05 Page 3 of 3