Opinion
19-cv-08243-JCS
02-23-2024
CHRISTOPHER BAYRE CHAMBERLIN, Plaintiff, v. HARTOG, BAER & HAND, APC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME RE: DKT. NO. 215
JOSEPH C. SPERO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On February 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Expert Report (dkt. no. 216) (“Motion for Leave”) and a motion to shorten time as to the briefing on the Motion for Leave (dkt. no. 215) (“Motion to Shorten Time”). The Court ordered Defendants to respond to the Motion to Shorten Time by February 22, 2024 and Defendants have now filed their response. (Dkt. no. 219) (“Response”). Defendants argue that the Motion to Shorten Time should be denied because Plaintiff made no meaningful effort to meet and confer with Defendants' counsel before filing the motion and therefore, it is procedurally improper under Civil Local Rules 6-3 and 37-1(a). They also argue in their Response that the Motion to Shorten Time should be denied because the Motion for Leave lacks merit, providing fulsome briefing on that question.
The Court does not take lightly Plaintiff's apparent failure to follow the Local Rules with respect to the Motion to Shorten Time. Such conduct imposes unnecessary burdens on opposing counsel and the Court and Plaintiff is cautioned that further such conduct may result in the imposition of sanctions. Nonetheless, Defendants have now responded not only to the Motion to Shorten Time but also the Motion for Leave. Consequently, its opposition to the Motion to Shorten Time is largely moot. Therefore, in the interest in resolving this dispute promptly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Shorten Time. No further briefing from Defendants on the Motion for Leave is required. Plaintiff may file a reply, not to exceed five pages, addressing Defendants' arguments opposing the Motion for Leave no later than February 27, 2024. The Court will decide the Motion for Leave on the papers.
IT IS SO ORDERED.