Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02879/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02879-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

---

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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HANGER PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS, )

INC., ) 2:06-CV-02879-GEB-KJM

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

CAPSTONE ORTHOPEDIC, INC.; GLEN )

ELLIS; SANTIAGO ROSALES; DAVID )

KIMZEY; ANGELA FULTON, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff filed an ex parte application on October 30, 2007,

to shorten the time for hearing on its motion to modify the Rule 16

Scheduling Order, so that Plaintiff could be provided more time for

discovery. The motion to modify is currently noticed for hearing on

December 3, 2007, but Plaintiff requests under Local Rule 6-144(e)

that the motion to modify be heard on November 19, 2007. Defendants

oppose the application.

Applications to shorten time shall set forth by

affidavit of counsel 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 of counsel showing a

satisfactory explanation for the need for the

Case 2:06-cv-02879-GEB -KJM Document 49 Filed 11/09/07 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

issuance of such an order and for the failure of

counsel 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). The rule does not state what

“circumstances” justify the order or what a “satisfactory explanation”

is, but courts generally require that the applicant demonstrate

circumstances showing that (1) the applicant is not the cause of its

own predicament, and (2) the order is “needed” to avoid some type of

harm. See In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (Bankr.

C.D. Cal. 1989) (holding that ex parte “applications are not intended

to save the day for parties who have failed to present requests when

they should have”); Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co.,

883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (holding that in order to

obtain ex parte relief, “[f]irst, the evidence must show that the

moving party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying

motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures. 

Second, it must be established that the moving party is without fault

in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the

crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect”); Yokohama Tire

Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612, 613 (D. Ariz.

2001) (citing Mission Power). 

Plaintiff offers two justifications for the order shortening

time. First, Plaintiff contends that due to a protracted dispute over

a protective order, Plaintiff now has a “very limited time” to obtain

discovery before taking depositions and filing any motions to compel. 

(Pl.’s Ex Parte App. at 3:11-14.) The discovery completion date is

November 28, 2007. Plaintiff avers that much discovery was held up by

the dispute over the wording of a protective order, which was a

prerequisite to the discovery Plaintiff desires, and consequently was

Case 2:06-cv-02879-GEB -KJM Document 49 Filed 11/09/07 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

not issued by the magistrate judge until October 3, 2007. (Id. at

3:11-18.) Plaintiff avers that Defendants have not been forthcoming

with production of documents even though the protective order was

issued. (Id. at 3:15-18.) 

Second, all three primary counsel for Plaintiff are

scheduled to begin another trial on November 19, 2007, lasting through

mid-December 2007. (Id. at 3:19-23.) At the time the Scheduling

Order was issued, the other trial was scheduled to begin April 30,

2007, but in late May the date was changed to November 19. (Id. at

3:24-27; Decl. Aaron Schwarcz in Supp. of Pl.’s Ex Parte App. ¶ 11.) 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated circumstances that justify

shortening the time for hearing Plaintiff’s motion. For instance,

Plaintiff does not explain why it should not be considered the cause

of its own predicament. Nothing in the application explains why the

referenced protective order was not sought earlier in the litigation;

nor does Plaintiff explain why it did not conduct the referenced

discovery earlier than it did. It appears that if the protective

order and the referenced discovery had been sought earlier, Plaintiff

would not have needed to file its application to shorten time. Since

Plaintiff has failed to make the necessary showing under Local Rule 6-

144(e), Plaintiff’s ex parte application is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2007

Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02879-GEB -KJM Document 49 Filed 11/09/07 Page 3 of 3