Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02220/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02220-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 07:499 Agricultural Commodities 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISTAR CORPORATION, a Colorado

corporation,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SIERRA VALLEY RESTAURANTS, INC.,

a corporation doing business as

Jack in the Box; CENTRAL VALLEY

FOODSERVICE, INC., a corporation

doing business as Jack in the

Box; FOOD SERVICE MANAGEMENT,

INC., a corporation doing

business as Jack in the Box;

KOBRA ASSOCIATES, INC., a

corporation doing business as

Jack in the Box; and ABE

ALIZADEH, an individual, 

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:09-cv-02220-GEB-GGH

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION

On November 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed an ex parte Application

for an order compelling the deposition of defendant Abe Alizadeh after

November 10, 2010, the discovery completion date prescribed in the April

23, 2010 Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order. 

Concerning discovery, the April 23, 2010 Status Order

requires:

All discovery [to] be completed by November 10,

2010. In this context, “completed” means that all

discovery shall have been conducted so that all

depositions have been taken and any disputes

relative to discovery shall have been resolved by

appropriate orders, if necessary, and, where

Case 2:09-cv-02220-TLN-AC Document 73 Filed 11/12/10 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

discovery has been ordered, the order has been

complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed

for such compliance shall have expired.

(ECF No. 56, 1:25-2:4.) The Scheduling Order further warns the parties:

“A party conducting discovery near the discovery ‘completion’ date risks

losing the opportunity to have a judge resolve a discovery dispute

concerning that discovery.” Id. at 2 n.1. Plaintiff has not concisely

shown why in the exercise of diligence, it did not complete the subject

discovery earlier during the pendency of this action. 

Further, Plaintiff has not adequately shown circumstances

“claimed to justify the issuance of an order [on shortened] time,” or

explained satisfactorily “the need for the issuance of [the requested]

order.” L.R. 144(e). Absent a showing of “need” involving circumstances

justifying an immediate decision on Plaintiff’s motion to amend the

discovery completion date in the Scheduling Order, the prescribed manner

for handling law and motion matters will not be disregarded. Therefore,

Plaintiff’s Application is denied. 

Dated: November 10, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-02220-TLN-AC Document 73 Filed 11/12/10 Page 2 of 2