UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 18, 2012
NOMADIX, INC., PLAINTIFF,
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; WAYPORT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; IBAHN CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; GUEST-TEK INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LTD., A CANADIAN CORPORATION; GUEST-TEK INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; LODGENET INTERACTIVE CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; LODGENET STAYONLINE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.; A DELAWARE CORPORATION; SUPERCLICK, INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION; SUPERCLICK NETWORKS, INC., A CANADIAN CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE REQUEST TO CROSS-EXAMINE DECLARANT CHEN GUANGHUI [Docket No. 725]
Presently before the court is Plaintiff Nomadix, Inc.'s Ex Parte Request to Cross-Examine Declarant Chen Guanghui Pursuant to Local Rule 7-8 ("Request"). Nomadix contends that Defendant Hewlett Packard Company ("HP") relies on the declaration of Chen Guanghui ("Chen") in its reply brief on a pending motion for summary judgment, and that Nomadix has not had any opportunity to question Chen. However, as Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP") explains in opposing the Request, Local Rule 7-8 is not proper for a summary judgment motion, as it only applies to motions "where an issue of fact is to be determined." See Coastal Delivery Corp. v. U.S. Customs Serv., 272 F. Supp. 2d 958, 961 (C.D. Cal. 2003). Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides a method for the non-movant to seek additional discovery in opposing summary judgment. Nomadix has in fact requested such discovery in its opposition here. The court therefore DENIES the Request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.