Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00891/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00891-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DOROTHY RODDEN JACKSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RICHARD CALONE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0891-TLN-KJN 

ORDER 

On May 5, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for expedited discovery to have plaintiff’s 

deposition taken in this action by no later than May 26, 2016, along with an ex parte application 

for an order shortening time so that the hearing on her motion could be scheduled for May 12, 

2016. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.) In her ex parte application, plaintiff argues that good cause exists to 

shorten the time to hear her motion because she “is 87 years old, blind and physically frail” and 

her motion requests that her deposition be ordered to occur on or before May 26, 2016. (ECF No. 

6 at 1.) 

The court finds that plaintiff’s application fails to demonstrate good cause for an order to 

shorten time for two reasons. First, while the court acknowledges that plaintiff’s age and alleged 

physical disabilities may weigh in favor of having plaintiff’s deposition taken on an expedited 

basis, plaintiff fails to indicate that her current health prospects are so dire that holding a hearing 

on a later date in conformance with Local Rule 230(b) would create a serious risk that plaintiff 

Case 2:16-cv-00891-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/09/16 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

would be unavailable provide the expedited deposition testimony she seeks to obtain through her 

motion. To the contrary, the exhibits attached to plaintiff’s motion indicate that there would be 

very little such risk. (See ECF No. 5-4, Exhibit B.) Second, the docket in this matter 

demonstrates that service of process was effectuated on defendants on May 4, 2016, just one day 

before plaintiff filed her motion and ex parte application. (ECF No. 4.) The fact that the 

shortened hearing date requested by plaintiff would occur just eight days after the initial service 

on defendants and effectively afford defendants only a few days to file a written response to 

plaintiff’s motion weighs heavily against holding the hearing on plaintiff’s motion on the 

expedited schedule plaintiff requests as it would cause an undue burden on defendants. This 

burden on defendants coupled with the apparent lack of need by plaintiff to hold the hearing on 

such an expedited basis brings the court to conclude that good cause does not exist for plaintiff’s 

request. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order shortening time (ECF No. 6) is DENIED. 

2. The May 12, 2016 hearing on plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery (ECF No. 5) 

is VACATED. 

3. Plaintiff shall contact the undersigned’s courtroom deputy to re-notice her motion for 

expedited discovery for a new hearing date in conformance with Local Rule 230(b).1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 9, 2016 

KJN/amd 

 

1

 The court is cognizant that scheduling the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery 

on a date that conforms to Local Rule 230(b) will result in a hearing date after the date by which 

plaintiff requests that her deposition be ordered to take place. However, while the court declines 

to address the merits of plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery as to the general question of 

whether plaintiff is entitled to have her deposition taken on an expedited basis at this juncture, it 

finds that plaintiff fails to demonstrate that such an expedited deposition should be taken on or 

before the May 26, 2016 deadline that plaintiff appears to have arbitrarily provided in her motion. 

Case 2:16-cv-00891-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 2