Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06408/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06408-22/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

KATHRYN HOGAN, et al., CASE NO. CV-F-03-6408 LJO WMW

 

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ AND

PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO

vs. SHORTEN TIME

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPUTY MICHAEL ROBINSON,

et al.,

Defendants.

 / 

Having read and reviewed Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request to have the motion for

reconsideration of the April 26, 2007 order heard on shortened notice (Doc. 185), this Court finds no

evidence that Plaintiffs’ counsel has complied with Local Rule 6-144(e), which reads in pertinent part:

Ex parte applications to shorten time will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel

showing a satisfactory explanation for the need for 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. (Bold added.) 

There is no evidence that counsel has met and conferred with opposing counsel regarding his request

for a hearing on shortened time and no explanation in the affidavit for counsel’s failure to obtain such

a stipulation. Counsel must evidence compliance with this rule before this Court will consider the

motion. Accordingly, this Court DENIES the ex parte request to hear the reconsideration motion on

shortened time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 187 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Dated: May 11, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 187 Filed 05/11/07 Page 2 of 2