Opinion
19-CV-11883 (GBD) (BCM)
06-22-2022
JINXIONG CHEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DUN HUANG CORP, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
BARBARA MOSES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs have filed two letter motions. The first (Dkt. No. 129) is a somewhat mysterious request for leave to file unidentified "relevant excerpts" from the deposition transcripts of two witnesses for unspsecified purposes. The application is DENIED.
The second (Dkt. No. 130) is a request to adjourn the conference now scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on June 27, 2022 until July 6, 2022, or later. This is the second adjournment request that plaintiffs have made for a conference concerning their own motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 123). If as attorney Tiffany Troy asserts, she "initially had all afternoon available" on June 27, she could and should have submitted a letter-application to move the conference from 11:00 a.m. to a later hour on that date. Instead, counsel now tells us that "June 27, 2022 is no longer available" due to an unspecified obligation in an unspecified case pending in an unspecified court. Counsel does not state whether she informed that unspecified court that she had an obligation to this Court on June 27, 2022. The application is DENIED. If Ms. Troy cannot attend on June 27, 2022, the Court will permit another attorney from her office to conduct the conference.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 129 and 130.
SO ORDERED.