Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00009/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00009-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

 The matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRIOT RAIL CORP.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-009 MCE EFB

vs.

SIERRA RAILROAD COMPANY,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On March 22, 2011, plaintiff Patriot Rail Corporation (“Patriot”) filed an ex parte

application for an order shortening time for hearing on a motion for a protective order and

sanctions.1

 Dckt. No. 146. Plaintiff contends that good cause exists to hear the motion for a

protective order on shortened time because “for the first time on March 21, 2011, Patriot learned

that Defendant and Counter Claimant Sierra Railroad Company (“Sierra”) filed a Motion to

Compel Responses to Subpoena and For Contempt and Sanctions on Third Party UBS Bank

(“Sierra’s Motion”) in district court in New York on March 17, 2011.” Id. at 2. Patriot contends

that Sierra failed to provide Patriot notice of the motion which is set to be heard in New York on

April 5, 2011, and that “Sierra’s Motion is untimely, as UBS’s responses to the subpoena at issue

Case 2:09-cv-00009-TLN-AC Document 148 Filed 03/23/11 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

2

was due on September 10, 2010, and the discovery cut-off has long since passed.” Id. Patriot

further contends that “Sierra’s Motion was brought for an improper purpose, namely, to harass

Patriot and one of its service providers,” and that “Sierra’s original purpose for seeking the

documents from UBS is no longer relevant since the Court issued an Order granting Patriot

summary adjudication on the very issue to which the documents were related.” Id. Patriot

contends that “Sierra’s Motion, if permitted to proceed, would cause Patriot to suffer prejudice

because Patriot’s expert reports and rebuttal report have been disclosed over four months ago

and because Patriot will be required to incur fees and costs opposing Sierra’s Motion in district

court in New York.” Id. Finally, Patriot contends that it sought a stipulation to shorten time

from Sierra to no avail, and that the motion should be heard on shortened time because Sierra’s

Motion is set to be heard on April 5 in New York and Patriot’s opposition to the motion is due

on March 28. Id. at 2-3.

However, on March 23, 2011, Sierra notified this court that it has directed its New York

counsel to dismiss the motion to compel in New York. Dckt. No. 147. Although Sierra’s

conduct in filing the motion in New York is disconcerting, especially in light of the long-expired

discovery deadline, because Patriot’s application for an order shortening time for hearing on a

motion for a protective order and the protective order motion itself are based upon the pending

motion in New York, in light of Sierra’s withdrawal of that motion, Patriot’s application for an

order shortening time and Patriot’s motion for a protective order and sanctions, Dckt. No. 146,

are denied.

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 23, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-00009-TLN-AC Document 148 Filed 03/23/11 Page 2 of 2