Opinion
2:19-cv-1722 JAM DB
12-03-2021
RANDALL SCOTT JOHNSON DECEASED, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF REDDING, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 1, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude defendants' rebuttal expert as well as an ex parte application to hear the motion on shortened time. (ECF Nos. 65 & 66.) The motions have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). Local Rule 144(e) provides that an application to shorten time shall set forth by affidavit of counsel the circumstances justifying the issuances of an order shortening time. “[A]pplications 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).
Here, plaintiffs' motion seeks an order setting a “response brief due December 6, 2021, ” a “reply brief due December 8, 2021, ” and a hearing on an “expedited schedule, ” because expert discovery closes in this action on December 17, 2021. (Mot. Short. Time. (ECF No. 66) at 3.) Plaintiffs assert that “[p]ursuant to the regular briefing schedule, the Motion” to exclude defendants' rebuttal expert “would not be heard until at least January 4, 2022, over two weeks after expert discovery closes.” (Id.)
However, Local Rule 251(a) provides that a motion dealing with a discovery matter may be heard on only 21 days' notice by filing a simple notice of motion and motion scheduling the hearing. Moreover, the declaration of plaintiffs' counsel states that the rebuttal expert witness disclosure at issue was made “[o]n November 12, 2021[.]” (Allen Decl. (ECF No. 65-1) at 1.) In this regard, plaintiffs had approximately two weeks to file a simple notice of motion setting a hearing on or before December 17, 2021, under the standard procedure provided by Local Rule 251. That plaintiffs elected not to do so does not constitute a satisfactory explanation to hear this matter on shortened time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' December 1, 2021 ex parte application for an order shortening time (ECF No. 66) is denied.