Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vistar Corp. v. Sierra Valley Restaurants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 10, 2010

VISTAR CORPORATION, A COLORADO CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SIERRA VALLEY RESTAURANTS, INC., A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS AS JACK IN THE BOX; CENTRAL VALLEY FOODSERVICE, INC., A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS AS JACK IN THE BOX; FOOD SERVICE MANAGEMENT, INC., A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS AS JACK IN THE BOX; KOBRA ASSOCIATES, INC., A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS AS JACK IN THE BOX; AND ABE ALIZADEH, AN INDIVIDUAL, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

On November 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed an ex parte Application for an order compelling the deposition of defendant Abe Alizadeh after November 10, 2010, the discovery completion date prescribed in the April 23, 2010 Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order.

Concerning discovery, the April 23, 2010 Status Order requires:

All discovery [to] be completed by November 10, 2010. In this context, "completed" means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed for such compliance shall have expired.

(ECF No. 56, 1:25-2:4.) The Scheduling Order further warns the parties:

"A party conducting discovery near the discovery 'completion' date risks losing the opportunity to have a judge resolve a discovery dispute concerning that discovery." Id. at 2 n.1. Plaintiff has not concisely shown why in the exercise of diligence, it did not complete the subject discovery earlier during the pendency of this action.

Further, Plaintiff has not adequately shown circumstances "claimed to justify the issuance of an order [on shortened] time," or explained satisfactorily "the need for the issuance of [the requested] order." L.R. 144(e). Absent a showing of "need" involving circumstances justifying an immediate decision on Plaintiff's motion to amend the discovery completion date in the Scheduling Order, the prescribed manner for handling law and motion matters will not be disregarded. Therefore, Plaintiff's Application is denied.

20101110

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.