Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00978-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK VANIER,

NO. CIV. S-06-978 LKK/EFB

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

BATTERY HANDLING SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

The court is in receipt of Battery Handling System’s

(“defendant”) application for an order shortening time to hear

defendant’s motion to exclude plaintiff’s retained expert witness,

Dr. John Hancock. Discovery in this matter closes March 11, 2007

and defendant maintains that it has “very little time to complete

the depositions of John Hancock, who failed to bring his entire

file to deposition on February 28, 2007.” Def.’s Ex Party App. for

Order Shortening Time, at 1:22-23. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-144(e) applications to shorten time

shall set forth the circumstances claimed to justify the issuance

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 59 Filed 03/08/07 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

2

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 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.” See Local Rule 6-144(e).

Here, defendant seeks to have the motion to exclude

plaintiff’s witness heard before March 11, 2007, which is when

discovery closes. March 11, 2007 is less than three days away.

There is simply no way that the court can hear this motion prior

to the close of discovery. Moreover, defendant fails to explain

why it waited until now, less than three days prior to the close

of discovery, to file an application to shorten time and the motion

to exclude. The court will take the motion to exclude under

submission. If it is necessary to re-open discovery for a limited

purpose, the court will address that issue in the order disposing

of defendant’s motion. 

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. Defendant’s Application for an Order Shortening Time is

DENIED.

2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or a statement of

non-opposition to defendant’s motion to exclude by March

19, 2007. Reply briefs, if any, shall be filed no later

than March 26th, 2007. At that point, the matter will

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 59 Filed 03/08/07 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

3

 stand submitted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 8, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 59 Filed 03/08/07 Page 3 of 3