From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LOL Fin. Co. v. Mebane

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
Sep 16, 2011
Case No.: Case No. 1:10 CV-00078 JLT (E.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2011)

Opinion

Case No.: Case No. 1:10 CV-00078 JLT.

09-16-2011

LOL Finance Company , Plaintiffs, v. Dwight G.. Mebane, Helen L. Mebane, Dwight and Helen Mebane Trust, Justin J. Mebane, Chet B. Mebane, Melisa J. Warner, John Doe, and ABC Company Defendants.

LAW OFFICES OF RALPH B. WEGIS, PC. RALPH B. WEGIS, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Justin J. Mebane, Melisa J. Warner, and Chet B. Mebane Stoel Rives LLLP JONATHAN C. MIESEN, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff LOL Finance Company


RALPH B. WEGIS, SBN 67966

LAW OFFICES OF RALPH B. WEGIS, PC.

1930 TRUXTUN AVENUE

BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301

Attorneys for Defendants Justin J. Mebane,

Melisa J.. Warner and Chet B. Mebane

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING

ORDER [DOC. 57] AND CONTINUING DATES FOR FILING AND HEARING

DISCOVERY MOTION TWO WEEKS

Present Dates:.

Filing Discovery Motions; 9/16/11

Hearing Discovery Motions: 10/14/11

Proposed Dates:

Filing Discovery Motions; 9/30/11

Hearing Discovery Motions: 10/28/11

Date: Submitted

Before: Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston

[For all purposes]

Action filed: _1/14/2010_

Defendants Justin J. Mebane, Melisa J. Warner and Chet B. Mebane (collectively "Individual Defendants"), by counsel, and plaintiff LOL Finance Company, by counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. There is a discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff's responses to the Individual Defendants.

2. The discovery responses that are the subject of this dispute pertain to responses that were due on August 10, 2011.

a. The LOL Finance Company's Responses were served as follows:
i. LOL Finance Company's written response to all the Individual Defendants' Request For Production on September 7, 2011;
ii. LOL Finance Company's Response to Chet Mebane's Special Interrogatories on September 15, 2011;
iii. LOL Finance Company's Response to Melissa Warner's Special Interrogatories on September 8, 2011:
iv. LOL Finance Company's Response to Justin Mebane's Special Interrogatories on September 8, 2011;
b. On September 16, 2011, LOL Finance Company, by counsel, agreed to the Individual Defendants request for a stipulation extending the cutoff offs to allow a more orderly approach to the issues in dispute.

3. The aforementioned chronology is provided for background on the timing of this dispute. .

4. Prior to such stipulation, the Individual Defendants represented that they were in the process of completing a motion to compel and ex parte application to bring this to the Court's attention the discovery issues.

5. To allow for an orderly resolution of these disputes, the possibility that more meet and confer will resolve or narrow issues, the parties request the relief requested herein. Additionally, the parties seek to minimize the motion practice on the procedure issues regarding the ex parte and, thus avoid the Court from having to rule on that motion..

6. Thus, the parties respectfully request, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, that the dates set forth in the scheduling order for the filing and hearing of discovery disputes be continued two weeks:

a. The last date to file a motion to compel would be 9/30/2011;
b. The last date a motion to compel could be heard would be 10/28/2011.

7. The parties do not envision this as affecting any other deadlines. There have been no prior requests to continue these dates.

SO STIPULATED

LAW OFFICES OF RALPH B. WEGIS, PC.

RALPH B. WEGIS, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants Justin J. Mebane, Melisa

J. Warner, and Chet B. Mebane

Stoel Rives LLLP

JONATHAN C. MIESEN, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff LOL Finance Company

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS the scheduling order to be amended as follows:

1. Non-dispositive motions SHALL be filed no later than 9/30/2011 and heard no later than 10/28/2011;

2. Before any discovery motion is filed, counsel SHALL meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve the matter. If resolution cannot be achieved, counsel SHALL have a telephonic conference with the Court to determine whether the matter can be resolved without need to file a formal motion. Only after this conference, may the discovery motion be filed.

3. No other dates set forth in the Scheduling Order are modified at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

LOL Fin. Co. v. Mebane

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
Sep 16, 2011
Case No.: Case No. 1:10 CV-00078 JLT (E.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2011)
Case details for

LOL Fin. Co. v. Mebane

Case Details

Full title:LOL Finance Company , Plaintiffs, v. Dwight G.. Mebane, Helen L. Mebane…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION

Date published: Sep 16, 2011

Citations

Case No.: Case No. 1:10 CV-00078 JLT (E.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2011)