Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

1

 Plaintiff mischaracterizes its motion as an “ex parte” motion. See Civil Local Rule 7-10

(defining ex parte motion as one brought “without notice to opposing party” and permitting such

motions only in limited circumstances not present here). As plaintiff’s papers were filed

electronically, however, defendant has received notice, and the motion was not made “ex parte”

within the meaning of Rule 7-10. The Court will deem the motion as one brought under Civil Local

Rule 6-3 (“Motion to Change Time”).

1

*E-FILED 3/8/2007*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SYNAPSIS, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

EVERGREEN DATA SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 05-1524 JF (RS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

SHORTEN TIME

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for an order shortening time.1 Plaintiff asserts that its

underlying motion to compel discovery needs to be heard prior to the deadline for the exchange of

expert disclosures in this action, but plaintiff has made no showing as to why the underlying motion

could not have been brought more promptly. Plaintiff also has not explained why it cannot seek an

extension of the deadline for exchanging expert disclosures from the presiding judge, should that

become necessary. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to compress the time for hearing the motion to a

degree that would impose an undue burden on defendant and the Court. Finally, it appears that the

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 240 Filed 03/08/07 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

2

parties are continuing to meet and confer in an effort to render the motion to compel unnecessary,

and they are strongly encouraged to do so. In view of all of these circumstances, the motion for an

order shortening time is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 240 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2