Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01974/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01974-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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 styles its motion to shorten time as an “Ex

Parte” motion. However, plaintiff filed its motion in

conformity with Local Civil Rule 6-3 (Motion to Change Time). 

I find that Rule 6-3 controls plaintiff’s motion to shorten

time.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF

AMERICA,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SUNBEAM CORPORATION, et al.

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-1974 BZ

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

CONTINUE HEARING ON SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, AND PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL

DISCOVERY

Before me is plaintiff’s motion to shorten time to file

certain other motions,1 including a motion to continue a

hearing on summary judgment and a motion for additional

discovery. Plaintiff also submitted proposed motions to

continue the hearing and to allow for additional discovery. 

Defendant Biddeford Blankets, LLC (Biddeford), submitted

opposition papers going to the merits of plaintiff’s proposed

Case 4:05-cv-01974-PJH Document 71 Filed 10/06/06 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

motions.

Plaintiff having met its burden under Local Civil Rule 

6-3, the motion to shorten time is GRANTED. Moreover, because

defendant has submitted papers going to the merits of

plaintiff’s proposed motions, and because I find the issues

fully aired, I find no need for further briefing or a hearing

on this matter. Plaintiff’s proposed motions are hereby

GRANTED as follows:

1. While the court has reservations about the need to

take discovery on what appears to be a legal issue,

given the policy that underlies Rule 56(f),

Plaintiff and Biddeford are granted leave to take

discovery limited to the issue of Biddeford’s

successor liability. Said discovery shall be

completed by December 4, 2006. Both parties shall

cooperate in providing discovery expeditiously and

shall promptly inform opposing counsel which persons

they wish to depose. Deposing an individual on the

issue of successor liability shall not preclude a

party from later deposing the same individual as to

other matters.

2. In the event a discovery dispute arises, lead

counsel for each party shall meet in person or, if

counsel are outside the Bay Area, by telephone and

make a good faith effort to resolve their dispute. 

Exchanging letters or telephone messages about the

dispute is insufficient. The Court does not read

subsequent positioning letters; parties shall

Case 4:05-cv-01974-PJH Document 71 Filed 10/06/06 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

instead make a contemporaneous record of their

meeting using a tape recorder or a court reporter.

In the event they cannot resolve their dispute,

the parties must participate in a telephone

conference with the Court before filing any

discovery motions or other papers. The party

seeking discovery shall request a conference in

a letter served on all parties not exceeding

two pages (with no attachments) which briefly

explains the nature of the action and the

issues in dispute. Other parties shall reply

in similar fashion within two days of receiving

the letter requesting the conference. The

Court will contact the parties to schedule the

conference.

3. Biddeford shall file its motion for summary judgment

by October 16, 2006. Plaintiff’s opposition is due

by December 18, 2006. Biddeford’s reply is due by

December 27, 2006.

4. Biddeford’s motion shall be heard on Wednesday, 

 January 10, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom G, 

15th Floor, Federal Building, San Francisco,

California 94102.

Dated: October 6, 2006

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\SAFECO\SHORTBZ.wpd

Case 4:05-cv-01974-PJH Document 71 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 3