Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00397/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00397-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

SHERIE WHITE, )

) CIV. S-04-397 GEB KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) ORDER

CINEMARK USA, INC. dba CINEMARK )

MOVIES 8, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On April 22, 2005, Defendant filed an ex parte application

for an order which would amend the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order,

which was filed on September 8, 2004, and amended on February 18,

2005. The February 18 amendment extended the discovery completion

date to April 25, 2005, and the last hearing date for motions to June

27, 2005. Defendant argues in a conclusory manner that these dates

should again be extended “because the parties have various deadlines

that are rapidly approaching. . . .” and that ex parte relief is

appropriate. (Ex Parte Application at 2.) 

To prevail on its application, Defendant must set forth in

an affidavit of counsel “the reasons why the extension is necessary.”

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 67 Filed 04/27/05 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

L.R. 6-144(c). Absent a showing of necessity, no reason exists to

allow the applicant to disregard the prescribed manner for handling

law and motion matters; since to hold otherwise could allow

ex parte applications [to] contravene the

structure and spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of this court. Both

contemplate that noticed motions should be the

rule and not the exception. Timetables for the

submission of responding papers and for the

setting of hearings are intended to provide a

framework for the fair, orderly, and efficient

resolution of disputes. Ex parte applications

throw the system out of whack. They impose an

unnecessary administrative burden on the court and

an unnecessary adversarial burden on opposing

counsel who are required to make a hurried

response under pressure, usually for no good

reason. They demand priority consideration, where

such consideration is seldom deserved. In effect,

they put the applicant "ahead of the pack,"

without cause or justification. Ex parte

applications are not intended to save the day for

parties who have failed to present requests when

they should have, and should not be used as a way

to "cut in line" ahead of those litigants awaiting

determination of their properly noticed and timely

filed motions.

In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (Bankr. C.D.

Cal. 1989). 

Here, Defendant essentially indicates that conducting

discovery close to the prescribed discovery completion date and then

encountering difficulties with that discovery attempt satisfies the

“necessary” showing prescribed in Local Rule 6-144(c). However,

Defendant is mistaken. Defendant’s application was filed three days

before the discovery completion date and, as stated in the Rule 16

Scheduling Order, “A party conducting discovery near the discovery

‘completion’ date runs the risk of losing the opportunity to have a

jurist resolve discovery motions pursuant to the Local Rules.” 

(Status Order at 3, n.2.) 

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 67 Filed 04/27/05 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

Furthermore, on February 18, 2005, the Court granted

Defendant’s February 16, 2005, ex parte application for an extension

of time and amended the Rule 16 Scheduling Order. “Except for one

such initial extension, ex parte applications for extension of time

will not ordinarily be granted.” L.R. 6-144(c). Therefore,

Defendant’s April 22, 2005, ex parte application is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 67 Filed 04/27/05 Page 3 of 3