Opinion
20-cv-03019-JCS
08-14-2023
WINIFREDO HERRERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
RE: DKT. NO. 96
JOSEPH C. SPERO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Cathay Pacific has filed an ex parte motion “for an order amending the Court's June 12, 2023, Order (ECF Dkt. No. 95) and extending Cathay Pacific's time to serve supplemental disclosures from August 15, 2023, to September 29, 2023.” Dkt. no. 96. Counsel is directed to the civil local rules of this Court governing motion practice, including ex parte motions and motions to enlarge time. See Civ. L. R. 6, 7. Civil Local Rule 7-10 states that “a party may file an ex parte motion, that is, a motion filed without notice to opposing party, only if a statute, Federal Rule, local rule, or Standing Order authorizes ex parte filing.” Civ. L. Rule 7-10. That rule further requires that “[t]he motion must include a citation to the statute, rule, or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought.” Cathay Pacific has cited no authority authorizing an ex parte filing to extend the deadline previously set by the Court. Therefore, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.