Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02527/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02527-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLIED NORTH AMERICA

Plaintiff, No. C 04-02527 MJJ (EDL)

v. ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DEFENDANT ESTATE OF DERMOD

HOUWELING’S EMERGENCY MOTION

TO COMPEL

WOODRUFF-SAWYER, et al.

Defendants.

___________________________________/

The Court has received Defendant Estate of Dermod Houweling’s Emergency Motion to

Compel Disclosure of Expert Reports and for Exclusion of Plaintiff’s Experts that was filed on

August 25, 2005 and Plaintiff’s filings in Support of Request for Case Management Conference and

Opposition to Estate of Dermod Houweling’s Emergency Motion that was filed on August 29, 2005. 

There has been no showing that the Estate even attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff before

filing this emergency motion. See Civil L.R. 37-1(a). Counsel for the Estate certified only that coDefendant Woodruff-Sawyer sent a letter dated July 6, 2005 to Plaintiff regarding the expert reports,

which in any event is insufficient to satisfy the meet and confer requirement. See Civil L.R. 1-5(n). 

Further, expert reports were due in June 2005, yet the Estate provides no explanation as to why it

waited until after the August 12, 2005 discovery cutoff date to file this motion. Finally, the Estate’s

motion did not include a request to shorten time as required by Civil Local Rule 6-3. Therefore, the

Estate’s motion is denied without prejudice. The Court would consider a request to shorten time that

Case 3:04-cv-02527-MJJ Document 255 Filed 09/02/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

is properly presented and would be inclined to set an abbreviated briefing schedule for a motion to

compel, if a motion is still necessary after proper meet and confer. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to

make themselves available for expedited meet and confer on this issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02527-MJJ Document 255 Filed 09/02/05 Page 2 of 2