Free Order on Motion to Shorten Time - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01525-H-BLM

Document 6

Filed 09/02/2008

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
The instant discovery dispute arises from litigation occurring in the Northern District of Illinois. Doc. No. 1. The motion to compel is the sole issue before this Court, and is in the Southern District of California because the subpoenas to which Defendant is allegedly unresponsive were issued from this district. Therefore, when Plaintiff refers to the close of fact discovery, it refers to the close of discovery in the underlying Illinois litigation.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Plaintiff, v. SCANTIBODIES LABORATORY, INC., Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 08cv1525-H (BLM) ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND (2) SETTING HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL [Doc. No. 4]

On August 22, 2008, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for an expedited briefing schedule on a motion to compel. Doc. No. 4

(motion for briefing schedule); Doc. No. 1 (motion to compel). Specifically, Plaintiff requests that a hearing on the motion to compel be held on September 4, 2008, with Plaintiff's reply due two days before the hearing, on September 2. Plaintiff requests the

accelerated schedule to permit it to acquire the information sought before the close of fact discovery on September 26, 2008.1 Doc. No.

-1-

08cv1525-H (BLM)

Case 3:08-cv-01525-H-BLM

Document 6

Filed 09/02/2008

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

4 at 1.

Defendant opposes Plaintiff's motion.

Plaintiff's motion

is DENIED for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff's citation to the pending close of fact discovery in the underlying Illinois case (Doc. No. 4 at 1) is not persuasive. Much of the discovery that Plaintiff seeks to compel Id. Presumably

was requested four months ago, in April 2008.

Plaintiff was aware of the September close of discovery at that time. Although the Court recognizes Plaintiff's efforts to obtain

the information from other sources (id. at 3), Plaintiff cannot wait until the eleventh hour to file its motion to compel, and then request both the Court and Defendant to accommodate last-minute efforts to meet a long-anticipated deadline. Second, Plaintiff's proposed schedule permits the Court only two days prior to the hearing in which to consider the fully-briefed motion to compel, and this is insufficient.2 See CivLR 7.1(e)

(unless the court orders otherwise, reply brief must be served not later than five court days prior to the hearing). The motion for an

accelerated briefing schedule is thus DENIED, and the following dates are set. /// /// /// /// /// /// A hearing date of September 17, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. is assigned
Plaintiff also contacted the Court via telephone to request that the hearing on the motion to compel be set for September 11, 2008, with Defendant's reply due on September 9. This schedule, too, permits the Court only two days in which to consider the fully-briefed motion.
2

-2-

08cv1525-H (BLM)

Case 3:08-cv-01525-H-BLM

Document 6

Filed 09/02/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

for Plaintiff's motion to compel.

Any opposition to the motion to Plaintiff

compel must be filed on or before September 8, 2008. shall file any reply on or before September 11, 2008. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

September 2, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO: HONORABLE MARILYN L. HUFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ALL COUNSEL AND PARTIES

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-

08cv1525-H (BLM)