News from today:
“On May 17, 1999, Pro Se Defendants Jeffrey S. Mitchell and William Ulrich filed an ex parte motion to enlarge time to respond to Plaintiff Business Wire's complaint (Docket #4). Defendants seek a thirty-day extension of their May 17, 1999 deadline. On May 24, 1999, Plaintiff filed a letter brief in opposition to Defendants' motion. Plaintiff does not object to a two-week extension of the deadline, but argues, without identifying any prejudice from a 30-day extension, that Defendants' request is excessive.
“Plaintiff also requests that the Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-3(a), lift the stay on discovery for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff to issue subpoenas on certain third parties to get the address of Defendant Shell, who resides in Italy. Plaintiff states that it has been unable to obtain her address despite diligent efforts.
“Accordingly, in consideration of the moving and opposing papers and the relevant authority, and good cause appearing, the Court enters the following order.
“(1) Defendants' ex parte motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's complaint no later than June 17, 1999.
“(2) Although Plaintiff's request may very well have merit, Rule 16-3(b) specifies that a party seeking relief from the stay of formal discovery must proceed under Civil Local Rule 7-10. That rule in turn requires the moving party to give three days notice, attempt to meet and confer on the request and then file an expedited motion. Plaintiff has not done so.
“This Court will deem Plaintiff's letter to provide the required notice to Defendants. The Court orders the parties to meet and confer promptly on this issue. Defendants should seriously consider stipulating to what appears to be a reasonable request on the facts as stated by Plaintiff. If the parties do not stipulate, Plaintiff may file an expedited motion on or after May 28, 1999 (provided it has made a reasonable effort to meet and confer). Defendants shall have two (2) court days to respond pursuant to Rule 7-10(d). The Court will then proceed in accordance with Rule 7-10(e).”
Elizabeth D. LaPorte
United States Magistrate Judge
_______________________________
**note from MrB: this is the full, complete, and unedited text, provided without editorial, and filed as a matter of public record in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. |
