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

Case 5:08-cv-00248-PVT

Document 32

Filed 08/29/2008

Page 1 of 1

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 Because Defendant BNM did not put a hearing date that complies with Local Rule 7-2(a) on the underlying motion, upon denial of the motion to shorten time the motion is not on calendar for any hearing date. The better practice is to notice the underlying motion in compliance with Local Rule 7-2(a), and put the proposed shortened time hearing date only in the motion to shorten time. ORDER, page 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION JOHNATHAN BRANT FINLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DAN PULCRANO, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Case No.: C 08-0248 PVT ORDER STAYING SUBPOENAS PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY

On August 28, 2008, Defendant Boulevard New Media, Inc. ("BNM") filed a motion to shorten time to hear a motion or in the alternative for a stay of production pending resolution of the motion. Based on the motion to shorten time or stay, and the file herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the subpoenas issued by Plaintiff to third parties American Leasing, L.P., Diablo Capital, and Bridge Bank, N.A. are STAYED pending resolution of Defendant BNM's motion to quash or modify. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant BNM's motion to quash or modify shall be heard on October 7, 2008.1 Dated: 8/29/08 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge