Opinion
1:21-cv-00974-DAD-HBK
07-23-2021
COOL RUNNINGS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. ANDRONICO ADAN GONZALEZ, ET. AL. Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DRC CONTRACTING LLC'S EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN BRIEFING (DOC. NO. 24)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pending before the Court is Defendant DRC Contracting LLC's Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing Regarding DRC Contracting, LLC's motion for expedited discovery filed on July 21, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 24, “Motion”). Defendant DRC concurrently filed its Motion for Expedited Discovery, attaching the declaration of attorney Shane Smith. (Doc. Nos. 23, 23-1).
Local Rule 144(e) (E.D. 2019) requires that applications to shorten time set forth the circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order shortening time. Ex parte applications to shorten time will not be granted except upon an affidavit showing a satisfactory explanation for the need for issuance of such an order and for the failure to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from the opposing party. Id.
Here, Defendant attach the declaration of counsel to their concurrently filed Motion for Expedited Discovery, but not to their Motion. (Doc. No. 23-1). Attorney Smith attests that he conferred via telephone with Plaintiff's counsel about the discovery sought in DRC's motion for expedited discovery. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff's counsel did not agree to produce the requested discovery. (Id.). Based on the time constraints in connection with Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and related hearing, Attorney Smith states he had no choice but to file the instant motion seeking expedited discovery. (Id.). Attorney Smith also attaches a copy of correspondence memorializing counsels' meet and confer discussion. (Id.) (citations omitted).
As set forth above, Rule 144(e) requires satisfactory explanation for the need for issuance of such an order and for the failure to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from the opposing party. Although not attached to the instant Motion, the Court deems Attorney Smith's declaration attached to the concurrently filed Motion for Expedited Discovery sufficient to demonstrate the need for expedited briefing. Further, a review of the docket confirms the matter needs attention sooner rather than later, especially to the extent Defendant contends it requires discovery to oppose Plaintiff's pending motion for a preliminary hearing now scheduled before the District Court on September 21, 2021. (Doc. No. 27).
Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminarily injunction on July 12, 2021 and an amended motion for a preliminary injunction on July 19, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 6, 17). The District Court recently entered an order (Doc. No. 27) extending Defendant's deadline to oppose the motion for a preliminary injunction and the related hearing to September 7 and September 21, 2021.
Nevertheless, based on the time constraints in this action given Plaintiff's pending motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court finds good cause to grant Defendant's application for a shortened time for briefing and hearing regarding its motion for expedited discovery as set forth below.
ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED:
Defendant DRC Contracting LLC's Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing (Doc. No. 24) is granted in part as follows:
a. Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant's motion for expedited discovery (Doc. No. 23) no later than Wednesday, July 28, 2021. 2 b. Defendant shall file a reply, if any, no later than Friday, July 30, 2021, c. The undersigned will hold a telephonic hearing on Defendant DRC Contracting LLC's motion for expedited discovery (Doc. No. 23) for Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. The Court's teleconference line is 888-204-5984 and passcode is 4446176.