Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00967/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00967-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

DANIEL JAMES, )

) 2:06-cv-967-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

BOBBIE ROWLANDS; STEVEN TRIPP, and )

VIVIAN VAUGHT, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff moves ex parte to shorten the time for hearing his

motion filed on March 20, 2008, in which he seeks to quash Defendants’

pending summary judgment motion and to re-open discovery. 

Applications to shorten time shall set forth by

affidavit . . . the circumstances claimed to

justify the issuance of an order shortening time. 

Ex parte applications to shorten time will not be

granted except upon affidavit . . . showing a

satisfactory explanation for the need for the

issuance of such an order and for the failure 

. . . to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of

such an order from other counsel or parties in the

action.

Local Rule 6-144(e) (emphasis added). 

///

Case 2:06-cv-00967-GEB-DAD Document 54 Filed 03/27/08 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

2

Plaintiff argues circumstances exist justifying shortening

time because non-parties whom Plaintiff served with subpoenas have

failed to comply with the subpoenas and Defendants have failed to

comply with the magistrate judge’s ruling compelling discovery. 

Plaintiff’s motion to quash and to re-open discovery is noticed for

hearing on April 21, 2008, the same day Plaintiff’s opposition to

Defendants’ summary judgment motion is due.

However, Plaintiff failed to file the affidavit required by

the local rule for ex parte requests to shorten time. See id. 

Further, Plaintiff did not serve the subpoenas on the non-parties

until less than one month prior to the discovery completion date set

in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order, even though Plaintiff was warned in

the Scheduling Order that “[a] party conducting discovery near the

discovery ‘completion’ date runs the risk of losing the opportunity to

have a judge resolve discovery motions pursuant to the Local Rules”

and was informed that discovery “completion means that . . . any

disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate

orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order

has been complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed for such

compliance shall have expired.” (Rule 16 Scheduling Order at 2:1-5 &

n.1.) Plaintiff has not shown this circumstance justifies the relief

he seeks since “courts generally require that the applicant [for ex

parte orders shortening time] demonstrate circumstances showing that

the applicant is not the cause of its own predicament.” Hanger

Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. v. Capstone Orthopedic, Inc., 2007 WL

3340935, *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2007).

Further, Plaintiff has not made a showing justifying hearing

the portion of his motion regarding Defendants’ compliance with the

Case 2:06-cv-00967-GEB-DAD Document 54 Filed 03/27/08 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

3

magistrate judge’s ruling apart from any opposition Plaintiff may file

to Defendants’ summary judgment motion. If Plaintiff believes he has

an evidentiary basis for opposing Defendants’ summary judgment motion,

it may be raised in his opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment

motion. See British Airways Bd. v. Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946, 954 (9th

Cir. 1978) (“When a party opposing summary judgment is unable to

present facts ‘essential to justify his opposition’ to the motion,

[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 56(f) authorizes him to file an

affidavit setting forth his reasons.”). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to shorten time is

denied. Further, since the issues Plaintiff raises are arguably

related to the summary judgment motion Defendants have filed which is

scheduled for hearing on May 5, 2008, the hearing on Plaintiff’s

motion to quash and to re-open discovery scheduled for April 21, 2008

is vacated and reset to commence at 9 a.m. on May 5, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00967-GEB-DAD Document 54 Filed 03/27/08 Page 3 of 3