Opinion
2:21-cv-0564 DAD DB
09-12-2022
DONSHEA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIREHUB, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES UNTIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On September 7, 2022, defendant filed a motion to compel and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on September 30, 2022, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 39.) That same day defendant filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time to hear the motion to compel. (ECF No. 38.) Pursuant to Local Rule 144(e) an application to shorten time shall set forth by affidavit of counsel the circumstances justifying the issuances of an order shortening time. “[Applications to shorten time will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel showing a satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order[.]” Local Rule 144(e).
Defendant's motion also makes a conclusory request “in the alternative to modify the scheduling order.” (ECF No. 38 at 2.) In this action that request must be made to the assigned District Judge.
Defendant's motion asserts that plaintiff has “stonewalled” defendant's attempt to schedule a deposition. (ECF No. 38 at 5.) The motion argues that if defendant's motion to shorten time is not granted “Plaintiff will have succeeded in delaying her deposition for months, and defendant will have lost weeks to conduct discovery prior to discovery cut-off.” (Id.) Assuming, arguendo, that this assertion is true, defendant has nonetheless failed to set forth a satisfactory explanation for the need to shorten time.
In this regard, on September 2, 2021-over a year ago-the previously assigned District Judge issued a scheduling order, ordering that the parties complete discovery by July 18, 2022. (ECF No. 24 at 5.) That deadline was later continued to November 21, 2022, pursuant to the parties' stipulation. (ECF No. 35.) Defendant “first noticed” plaintiff's deposition for March 31, 2022. (Id. at 2.) According to defendant, plaintiff “failed to appear for two more noticed depositions dates-August 29 and September 6, 2022.” (Id.)
Why defendant waited so long to first notice plaintiff's deposition or to resolve this issue is unclear. What is clear is that under these circumstances the undersigned cannot find that the defendant has set forth a satisfactory explanation for the need to hear the motion to compel on shortened time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's September 7, 2020 ex parte application for an order shortening time (ECF No. 38) is denied.